Quayside Village, Canada

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 6

CASE-IN-POINT 2017

ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE LIVING


THROUGH COHOUSING
Lessons from Quayside Village (North Vancouver, B.C.)
Ellen Enns | Ronaye Matthew (Cohousing Development Consultant, Founder and Principal)

ABSTRACT
Historically, humans have often lived in small communities that share resources and
live in harmony with nature. The current era of housing has unfortunately prioritized
the individual by creating single-family residences that are consuming viable land.
(Scotthanson & Scotthanson, 2005). This type of housing creates isolation for its
occupants and decreases the social interactions that come with sharing resources
and engaging in community activities (Scotthanson et al., 2005). With social,
economic and environmental concerns brought forth by today’s housing landscape, a
new concept of housing has emerged known as cohousing. Cohousing is a relatively
new approach to sustainable living that draws upon characteristics of early human
settlement to create a socially engaging and economically responsible community.
This case study explores Quayside Village, a cohousing development in North
Vancouver that has achieved several outcomes in creating a sustainable community.
1.0
WHAT IS
COHOUSING?
Cohousing is a clustering of homes, or units in a
building, where residents share common spaces and
resources. Units are privately owned, however some
cohouses have rental units. Cohousing originated in
Denmark in the 1960’s when a group of families started
living together to share evening meals and childcare
(Scotthanson et al., 2005). Cohousing then became
very popular and communities started to form in North
America during the 1980’s.

In many contexts, cohousing often gets confused with


condominium or cooperative housing developments. FIGURE 1 | Quayside Village
Cohousing bears similarities of condominiums and
cooperatives in ownership and operation, as cohousing

2.0
groups most often register a new development as a
condominium legally, as obtaining financing is easier.
Sharing resources in cohousing is similar to cooperative QUAYSIDE VILLAGE
developments, however there is no shared income
between residents of a cohousing development BACKGROUND
(Scotthanson et al., 2005).
Quayside Village was one of the first cohousing
The Cohousing Model
developments in Canada, taking 2 years to complete
Cohousing aims to achieve a sustainable community
(1996-1998) (Canadian Cohousing Network, 2016).
that creates social, economic and environmental
Quayside is located at 510 Chesterfield Avenue, at
outcomes. As these outcomes vary between projects,
the corner of Chesterfield Avenue and 5th Street, in
all groups interested in cohousing come together to
the Lower Lonsdale area of North Vancouver, B.C.
plan a vision for a community that they desire. This
(Cohousing Development Consulting, 2017). Residents
planning is conducted through a consensus decision-
are within walking distance to various local amenities
making process that imposes a fair system for resident
and within a short commute to Downtown Vancouver.
input. After move in, communities are operated by the
Quayside contains 19 residential units total; 1 is a rental
residents in a non-hierarchical structure comprised of
unit and 5 are affordable units (CDC, 2017). Units vary
several committees (Scotthanson et al., 2005).
in size and type including bachelor, 1 or 2 bedroom
and townhouses (CDC, 2017). All units have their
own kitchen and fireplace and access to the common
courtyard through a covered yard, deck, or balcony (CDC,
2017). The common space is 2,500 square foot which
includes a courtyard, reading rooms, and a common
dining area, and a 650 square foot commercial space is
located on site (CCN, 2016).

FIGURE 2 | Cohousing Concept Drawing

2 Case-in-Point 2017
3.0
QUAYSIDE
OUTCOMES
Quayside prides itself on being a safe and sustainable
community with a mix of ages, ethnicities and family
types (Meltzer, 2005). Through the development
process, the group was able to create such a community
that produced social, economic, and environmental
FIGURE 3 | Quayside Village Courtyard
outcomes that benefit all residents.

SOCIAL BENEFITS ECONOMIC BENEFITS


Quayside’s layout was intentionally designed to As most cohousing developments consist of privately-
facilitate social interaction. The building’s entrance is a owned dwellings, Quayside contains affordable units
wide walkway connecting residents and visitors directly that serve the growing demand for affordable housing in
from the street to the main common area (Meltzer, North Vancouver (Warson, 1999). The City wanted more
2005). Common spaces are shared amongst all residents affordable housing so they offered a density bonus and
for various activities, for example ,the common lowered the land cost for those units. The density bonus
dinning area is where residents cook meals and dine was 10% to allow for these units, as well as reducing
together (Warson, 1999). Quayside also celebrates a building setbacks and parking spots (Green Building
multi-generational community comprised of seniors, Audio Tours, n.d.). Not only do affordable units offer an
young families, and singles. A relationship between increased opportunity for feasible housing, but all units
the senior citizens and children is one that creates a are designed by the residents during initial planning as
socially diverse environment for seniors, often lacking a way of creating units that work with their individual
in conventional senior housing, while offering young budget (CDC, 2017). In addition to affordable units, the
parents inexpensive childcare (Meltzer, 2005). sharing of resources such as childcare, carpooling and
meals, reduces the everyday costs of living that are
Accessible design has been incorporated into often difficult to cover when people live on their own.
Quayside’s layout, including the entrance and main
common space which can easily be accessed from the ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
street, either by foot or wheelchair (Meltzer, 2005). All The site on which Quayside resides is very compact,
townhouses have ground floor entires and additional occupying only a 1/4 of an acre (CDC, 2017). Construction
universal design features have been incorporated into of the project maintained a low environmental
the affordable rental units (Meltzer, 2005). footprint by reusing on-site materials to create stain-
glass windows, wooden doors and oak floors, used
for the common areas (CCN, 2016). The building was
also designed with BC Hydro’s Powersmart Program
and BC Gas Energy Efficiency Program (GBAT, n.d.).
With financial aid from the Canadian Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, Quayside installed a grey water
recycling system, which was the first in Canada to be
incorporated into a multi-housing project (CDC, 2017).
The community maintains environmentally conscious
efforts by carpooling, biking and walking and recycling
and composting waste (63% of all waste is recycled and
all kitchen scraps are composted) (GBAT, n.d.).

FIGURE 4 | Quayside Village Area Plan

3 Case-in-Point 2017
4.0
HOW QUAYSIDE ACHIEVED
IT’S VISION: THE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS

While the development process is similar for all


cohousing projects, Quayside’s process provided
valuable lessons for future projects by showing the
importance of the consensus decision-making process
as well as the role of the cohousing consultant when
overcoming project challenges.

CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING


The group that formed Quayside explored their goals,
FIGURE 5 | Gathering of Residents at Quayside
values and commitment to one another in the early
planning stages of the project, just as all cohousing
groups do. The group was able to build housing that on best cohousing practices, potential risks of
suited their needs, as opposed to find housing that cohousing and answered any questions and concerns
suited their needs.“Experience shows that only people that residents had. It was suggested to Quayside that
who seek new residential options for themselves the project contain between 20-35 units (Nutt, 2002).
will have the motivation to push through the arduous Any less would make management and financing
planning and design process without comprising their difficult, and any more would cause residents to lose
initial goals” (McCamant & Durrett, 1994). It was out on intimate social connections that comes with
important for residents at Quayside to understand that fewer neighbours (Nutt, 2002). The next phases of
consensus should not always consist of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ development consisted of searching for land, site
answer to decisions. There is a range of responses that acquisition, project feasibility and cost projections. CDC
individuals can use to express how they feel about a acted as the project manager, coordinating with the
particular decision, such as ‘Really agree’, ‘not like it’ group and the other professionals (contractor, lawyers,
or ‘willing to live with it’. This creates a better dialogue banks, architect etc.) while acting as an advocate for
between the group and provides a better rationale for the group to ensure that their personal investments for
decisions than simply a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer would. the project were safe. CDC also aided in negotiations
As long as the group defines a vision, understands with the City to obtain the density bonus allowance for
the existing conditions, and identifies the necessary the affordable units.
pathways to get there, then a project should achieve
it’s vision set forth by the residents (Scotthanson et al., PROJECT CHALLENGES
2005). In any cohousing project there are always challenges
and various risks associated those challenges.
ROLE OF THE CONSULTANT Cohousing has issues due to the lack of knowledge
The role of the consultant is extremely important for that professionals have on cohousing, it’s ownership
cohousing developments. Cohousing groups act as structure, acquiring land and the consensus decision-
the developer and often do not have the skills and making process. For Quayside, the project ran into
resources to develop a project on their own. Projects issues when construction costs were underestimated
that are done without professional assistance most as the building has more complexity than was originally
often never come to fruition. The cohousing consultant budgeted for. This caused the need for cost levies to
for Quayside, Cohousing Development Consulting (CDC), cover the ongoing maintenance and unanticipated
offered several services to guide the group along the repairs. Because the residents act as the developer, a
development process. Prior to working with the group, lot of costs came out of their pockets, causing tensions
the consultant hosted a community building workshop within the community. They eventually had to hire an
to educate residents on cohousing. They were educated outside financial consultant to help them until the debts
4 Case-in-Point 2017
were paid off (Meltzer, 2005). Challenges also ensued
with resident management structure upon project
move in. The group had developed a flexible framework
that would allow them to deal with resident issues
on an ad hoc basis (Meltzer, 2005). There were issues
with too many committees for day-to-day operations,
cooking schedules and quiet hours in the open courtyard
(Meltzer, 2005). However, after a few years of testing
various methods to solve issues, the community now
runs very smoothly (Meltzer, 2005).

5.0
LESSONS LEARNED

Several valuable lessons were learned from Quayside’s FIGURE 7 | View of Vancouver

development as it became a framework for future


cohousing developments in Canada. With a well defined
vision, education on cohousing, and professional 6.0
cohousing assistance, the planning process can be CONCLUSION
quite simple. The majority of developers, planners and
other professionals do not have enough experience Developing sustainable housing can be challenging.
in cohousing. It is important to educate people who Housing has to meet demands in the market, and
are seeking cohousing, and professionals who can unfortunately, the three major components of
guide them along the development process. Hiring sustainability, social, economic, environment, are never
a cohousing consultant, such as the CDC, who has all met simultaneously. If housing is affordable, it
immense knowledge and experience in cohousing, may not foster social interaction or not be constructed
is crucial to the success of any cohousing project. with green sourced materials as they usually more
The cohousing consultant aids in communication expensive. Another situation is when housing is
between the group and the other professionals, and constructed with expensive green technologies and
acts as a support system to mitigate conflict amongst offers a lot of amenities, however the units are not
group members in order for them to achieve the affordable for most individuals. This cycle continues
community of their dreams. Creating sustainability, and in housing, as one component of sustainability is
affordability, in housing by balancing social, economic sacrificed for another. Truly sustainable living, that
and environmental outcomes is achievable through the satisfies social, economic and environmental needs of
cohousing model. people, can be achieved through the cohousing model.
Quayside Village is a exemplar case of how cohousing
can be successful in Canada and achieve goals that
often seemed impossible when creating a sustainable
community.

FIGURE 6 | Quayside Village

5 Case-in-Point 2017
FIGURES
RESOURCES
Figure 1 | Canadian Choosing Network (2016) Quayside
Village [Photograph], Retireved from http://cohousing.ca/
Cohousing Development Consulting (CDC) (2017) “Quayside wp-content/uploads/2014/11/11144_QuaysideMain.jpg
Village, Project Description”. Retrieved from http://www.
cohousingconsulting.ca/proj%20Qv.html Figure 2 | PDX Commons Cohousing (2013) The Sunriv-
er look [Drawing], Retrieved from https://pdxcommons.
Canadian Cohousing Network (2016) “Quayside Village”. com/2013/07/31/the-many-faces-of-cohousing/
Retrieved from http://cohousing.ca/places/canada/british-
columbia/north-vancouver/bc_cohousing/quayside-village/ Figure 3 | Cohousing Development Consulting (n.d.) Quay-
side Village Courtyard [Photograph], Retrieved from http://
Green Building Audio Tours (GBAT) (n.d.) “Quayside Village www.cohousingconsulting.ca/proj%20Qv.html
Cohousing”. Retrieved from http://gbat.me/buildings/
quayside_village_cohousing Figure 4 | Elizabeth Mackenzie (Photographed plan drawing)
(n.d.) Quayside Village Area Plan [Plan drawing], Retrieved
McCamant, K. & Durrett, C. (1994) Cohousing: a from http://gbat.me/buildings/quayside_village_cohousing
Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves. Ten Speed
Press: Berkeley, California Figure 5 | [Photograph, Group of Residents]. Retrieved from
https://sites.google.com/site/quaysidevillage/commonspace
Meltzer, G. (2005) “Quayside Village: Creating an
environmentally sustainable lifestyle”. Natural Life Figure 6 | B.C.’s Best Buildings (2017) 398: Quayside Village
Magazine; Canadian Business and Current Affairs Database, [Photograph], Retrieved from http://www.architecturefounda-
pp.28-34. tionbc.ca/best-buildings-entries-for-voting/

Nutt, R. (2002) “Private dwellings in a communal Figure 7 | Quayside Village (flickr). (n.d.) View of Vancouver
environment: Quayside Villagers helped design their (Quayside Village) [Photograph], Retrieved from https://
multigenerational cohousing blend” Edmonton Journal, hiveminer.com/User/Quayside%20Village
pages K5.

Scotthanson, C. & Scotthanson, K. (2005) The Cohousing


Handbook: Building a Place for Community. New Society
Publishers: Gabriola Island.

Warson, A. (1999) “The affordable housing puzzle” Building;


Toronto. 49 (2), pp.-26-33.

6 Case-in-Point 2017

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy