In a recent post, I described my visits to a pair of
pocket neighborhoods in Seattle. It was
on-the ground observation of the concepts described by Ross Chapin in his book “Pocket Neighborhoods: Creating Small-Scale
Community in a Large-Scale World”. To complete
my pocket neighborhood day, I crossed Lake Washington to look at another pair of
projects, both of which were designed by Chapin.
An advantage
of the pocket neighborhood concept is site flexibility. Small footprint homes, especially those that
can be physically separated from their garages, can be sited in more creative
ways than 3,000 square-foot homes with three-car garages. This flexibility allows pocket neighborhoods
to be accommodated on sites for which standard suburban fare would be difficult.
Conover Commons in Redmond is a case in point. With an oddly-shaped nine-acre parcel, further
restricted by steep topography and wetlands, it’s likely that no more than five
or six standard suburban homes could have been squeezed onto the parcel. But the Conover Commons design team was able
to design an elegant and comfortable 25-unit project.
Chapin
espouses a theory that approximately twelve homes make a right-sized neighborhood,
one in which bonding between residents will occur. Under the pocket neighborhood concept, each
neighborhood will also usually have a common house, a separate building in
which communal activities can be held, such as joint dinners.
The 25 units
of Conover Commons therefore should have two neighborhoods. The shape of the site allowed a layout in
which the each neighborhood was logically coherent and also allowed the two
neighborhoods to have different characters.
Toward the
rear of the site, most of the homes are located in fairly close proximity to
the garages. The short walks from car to
front door likely cause reduced interaction between neighbors and perhaps also reduced
use of the common house. But it’s the better
configuration for seniors or others with limited mobility.
In the front,
however, most of the garages are in a structure near the entry from the public
street. As a result, most residents walk
down a luxuriant allee to a grassy courtyard surrounded by homes. On a dreary and drizzly Puget Sound evening,
the walk may seem like drudgery, but the residents in neighborhood are more
likely to engage in daily interaction.
And the common house at one end of the courtyard is likely to receive
greater use.
In a feature
that Chapin often encourages, many of the similarly-scaled cottages have
owner-selected names. It’s a way of
instilling a sense of pride and differentiation among the cottage owners.
My visit was
short and I didn’t have an opportunity to speak with any residents. However, the general care of the common areas
and of the transitional areas near the front of each home bespoke a healthy,
engaged community.
My second
visit was to Danielson Grove in Kirkland. In contrast to Conover Commons, the Danielson
Grove parcel was roughly rectangular in shape and didn’t have the other
constraints of the Conover Commons.
However, the Danielson Grove site, although it could accommodate sixteen
units, didn’t easily allow two distinct neighborhoods.
The design
team solution was two dissimilar neighborhoods, one with ten homes around a
grassy courtyard and a common house and the other with six homes around a
landscaped garden and no common house.
It seems likely the two neighborhoods will have different personalities,
but are in sufficiently close proximity that the differences shouldn’t be
problematic.
Unfortunately,
I have no photos of the grounds, being informed by a resident on my arrival
that photos could be taken of the grounds or homes only upon approval by the
board of directors. She claimed the
reason was that the cottages were private homes.
However, I
was able to converse with the resident, who expressed broad satisfaction with
Danielson Grove. She specifically noted
that her young granddaughter loved getting to know and visiting with the
residents around the grassy courtyard.
The
resident’s only compliant about Danielson Grove was the distance between her
garage and her home. Due to a
disability, she was finding the walk increasing difficult.
Much like
Conover Commons, the overall appearance of Danielson Grove seems to imply a
healthy and functioning community.
A note about
the no photos policy. The homeowner had
her facts slightly wrong, although she was still on firm ground. As Google Streetview has established, there
is no prohibition against taking pictures of private homes. Indeed, it is hard to take an outdoor photo
in a residential area without catching another home in the viewfinder.
However,
there is certainly a prohibition against trespassing. When the homeowner spoke to me, I was on
Danielson Grove property, so I quickly acceded to her request. (The two photos of Danielson Grove shown here
were taken from the public sidewalk.)
But there is
a bigger issue. Presumably most of the
residents of Danielson Grove live there either because they love the lifestyle
or because they believe in the concept and are willing to support it. In either case, wouldn’t it be reasonable to
allow others to proselytize in support of pocket neighborhoods?
Perhaps
others with cameras have abused the opportunity, but I just can’t believe that
enough photographers come by Danielson Grove that a prohibition was required.
The
situations aren’t strictly parallel, but I recently replaced a fence around my wife’s
and my frontyard. Our home sits quite
close to the sidewalk. The previous
owner had installed a solid board fence, 48 inches high, to give some privacy
to the home and yard. But my wife and I
found the fence to be awkward barrier between us and the street.
As a result,
I replaced the board with welded wire.
In terms that Chapin would use, the new fence improved the layered
transition between the public and private realms.
The
neighbors seem to love the new fence.
I’ve not yet seen anyone taking photos, but many stop and linger at the
fence, enjoying my wife’s landscaping efforts.
I’ve conversed with several about the fencing materials used and the
construction approach. Nor would I
object if someone had a camera.
It’s not
strictly the same as the Danielson Grove situation, but I think my attitude is
a more healthy response to community building.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment