Prepared for Mosaic Commons Cohousing by Kraus-Fitch Architects, Inc.
Slide presentation, Q&A.
Introduction
1. Each participant introduced his/herself and spoke of one thing he/she is looking forward to doing outside in your community
2. Ground Rules reviewed
3. Agenda reviewed
4. Architectural Process reviewed.
Site Feedback
Participants spoke one-on-one with each other about each of the two sites.
Imaging Exercise
Mary led the group through a guided visualization exercise. Each member spoke briefly about images that came to mind. The following lists is a summary only:
¨ Units: sunny, wood beams, porches big enough to sit and eat on
¨ Common House: wraparound porch, natural materials (stone, wood), lots of glass connecting in to out; courtyard with tables
¨ Paths: meandering, curving, narrow (but not too close), flowers and plants very close to path, surfaces (brick, dirt, gravel), nodes along the way (trees, grass, and benches), views of Common House
¨ Housing: close, staggered
¨ Green: big enough for frisbee
¨ Destinations / Activities: Workshop, art studio, cob oven, garden, “sanctuary in the pines”, gazebo, apple trees, water garden
¨ Details: natural posts (branching)
Over-arching Design Goals
Laura reviewed the goals as they were tabulated in homework. Adjustments were made in definitions and prioritization of goals. See FINAL Site Design Program.
Site Program
1. Mary reviewed the changes that were incorporated into the DRAFT Site Design Program. These were discussed and altered accordingly. See FINAL Site Design Program.
2. Mary reviewed and edited list of “discussion items” from program to be discussed later in the day.
3. Mary reviewed and edited list of “exploration items” to be looked at in site plan exercise on Sunday
Discussion Items
1. Number of Houses: This was clarified without discussion. There has been a prior decision to design for 20-35 houses, with the ideal number at 28. The Maynard site should be designed for 26.
2. Mix of Building Types / Single Family
- Decision: No single family units
- Decision: Some units with more than 2 units (i.e. multiplexes)
- Note: 7 households raised hands indicating that they might choose to live in an internal unit if it was correspondingly cheaper.
3. Garages: Participants lined up in a “spectrum” to help determine consensus on various garage issues.
- Decision: No garages attached to individual units
- Decision: No closed garages
- Decision: Some carports (25% immediately, 50% total in future). Financing to be determined.
4. Units attached to Common House: Participants lined up in a “spectrum” to consider the pros and cons of attaching units to the common house. Ultimately it was decided that this issue should be looked at in more detail during the common house programming workshop / schematic design sessions.
5. Home Offices / Common House relationship: Participants lined up in a “spectrum” to consider the pros and cons of attaching home offices to the common house. Ultimately it was decided that they should be in separate buildings. It was also repeatedly suggested in later exercises, that the offices should be somewhat removed from the main community areas.
6. Truck Access to Common House
- Decision: Design for truck access, but do not necessarily build it because of aesthetic and cost concerns
Summary, Evaluation and Closing
Generally participants felt good about the day and suggested the following: more clarity on specific questions, use card system vs. hands, and have more clarity on program before beginning programming piece (ex. explain results of homework).
Sunday, Sept. 15th:
Introduction and Ground Rules
1. Each participant introduced his/herself and spoke of one thing he/she is looking forward to eating at a common BBQ.
2. Ground Rules reviewed
3. Agenda reviewed
Site Layout
1. Show and tell of example Community plans: Laura reviewed and fielded questions on site plans of other communities.
2. Small groups worked with blocks on the Maynard site plan. They were instructed to consider the following “exploration items:
· Common house locations
· “Patterns”
· Multiplexes (how many units together)
· Parking / unit distance and relationship
· Unit / Common House distance and relationship
· Hard surface play / ball field
· Where could you add more units (Stow)
· 2-3 acre limitation (how does this feel?)
· emergency access on inside or outside of community
· covered pedestrian way
3. Small groups presented their sketches and everyone brainstormed pros and cons which Laura recorded.
4. The same exercise and evaluation was done on the Stow site.
Qualities of Spaces and Elements
Small groups created image boards for different exterior spaces from images brought by themselves and/or provided by KFA. These were then presented.
Site Layout (continued discussion):
1. Maynard
- Laura and Mary spent some time evaluating and sorting site design ideas which Mary then presented.
- Mary and Laura recommended two directions to be explored for Maynard: CH on West end and CH on North with access on back side of CH. Consensus decision to do same.
- below another unit (many raised)
- above another unit (many raised)
At this point KFA recommends designing without stacked units, but keeping this option open. Agreed by consensus. KFA was given the go-ahead to include stacked units if a compelling reason becomes obvious during design.
- Mary asked the question how far west can development go on Maynard. No one had a strong sense of this, except to stay outside of river setback. Consensus decision for KFA to show what they think works best for overall site plan.
- Mary asked if existing house at Maynard could be used as units (instead of offices as most groups had done in block exercise). There was some sentiment expressed that the house was unattractive, and that using it might shift the design too much. Consensus decision: only if it really makes sense economically or otherwise.
2. Stow
- Mary and Laura recommended two directions to be explored for Stow site: CH on north with access between community and pond and CH on South West. The former was eliminated due to concern that the CH would not be between parking and houses. Consensus decision to have KFA explore two variations with CH in South West (more linear, and “tight cloverleaf”)
- There was some discussion about the lack of information currently available for the Stow site. Laura and Mary said that any decisions made could/should be re-evaluated by the group under the light of any new information in the future.
Extra Time:
1. “Beauty”: An issue raised (and not completely resolved) during the early “overarching design goals” discussion was looked at again. It was decided that “attractive” architecture and landscape was considered a “very important” goal, but “beautiful” architecture and landscape were only an “important” goal.
2. Covered Pedestrian way: A decision was made not to explore this item any further as it was considered too urban, and a luxury.
Storage Bin:
The following items were collected during the course of the workshop to be discussed at a later date:
¨ Site location / Unit type: KFA recommends that the architect (in consultation with entire group) place unit types according to where they work best in the overall plan, rather than as requested by individual members. Either this needs clarity or discussion.
¨ Car Repair in workshop.
¨ Units attached to Common House – this will be discussed more in Common House and Unit Programming & Design Workshops.
The general sense of the group was that this had been a very productive workshop – but folks were clearly tired. It was difficult to work on two sites. People were pleasantly surprised at how much they had in common and appreciated insights gained from the diversity within group.
The meeting was adjourned. If you have any changes to be made to these minutes, please provide them in writing to Kraus-Fitch Architects.
Respectfully Submitted,
Laura Fitch, Principal
Kraus-Fitch Architects, Inc.