No progress has been made on permits or environmental review in the year since Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspections held its last public comment session about the proposed development of Talaris, the wooded 18-acre former research institute site near Seattle Children’s Hospital in the Northeast sector of the city.

The last opportunity the public had to comment on a proposal to build 65 new single-family detached homes was September 15, 2020. At that meeting, SDCI was accepting comments on scoping for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The agency received hundreds of comments asking them to reconsider the permit that would authorize the removal of hundreds of trees and replace them with an exclusive enclave. 

The EIS was supposed to have a draft review within 5 to 7 months. Now a full year later, there has been no movement on the site or the proposed development under its master permit application. Additionally, there are $39,063.10 in unpaid fees on the application, with no invoices paid since April 2021. On October 1, 2021, the applicant did submit a “Certificate of Approval” to the Seattle Landmarks Board, but no date has been set for a meeting. The site itself is gated, sealed to the public, and falling into disrepair.

While the developer has been sitting on their hands, Affordable Talaris has been busy. The volunteer group of Seattle neighbors has been meeting with elected officials and local agencies to discuss alternatives to sprawling suburban development inside the City. The group welcomed guest speakers from the Thornton Creek Alliance and the Seattle Audubon Society and worked with other organizations to build coalitions preparing for the upcoming comprehensive plan rewrite. It’s vital work as Seattle prepares to elect a new mayor who will have immense power over the next 20 years of the city’s development.

Affordable Talaris also organized two design charrettes. Held in January and April, these meetings allowed members of the team’s Design Group to present three focused alternatives for the site: tree preservation, history, or housing. In stark contrast to the dull, detached boxes proposed by the Talaris developer, Affordable Talaris worked to respond to the actual situation on the ground and the needs of a changing city. During those sessions, the team took comments from a panel of architects and urban planners who spent their free time envisioning a better future for the 18 acre site. (I was permitted to attend with the promise I sit quietly in the back and not smoke.)

WHAT IF…?

What if the Talaris design goes forward as its owners currently propose? Essentially Ultron wins. A giant, faceless (tree) murderbot comes in and takes out most of the site’s vegetation to sculpt Talaris’ historic landscape into front yards for 65 individual lots. We’ve called the proposal an “unmitigated disaster” because it locks the site into another 50 years of the same kind of polluting sprawl that’s rendering the world uninhabitable (like Ultron). The property is shredded apart into single family tracts, each owning parts of the private streets to boost the allowable size of the house, thus skirting the City’s so called “McMansion ban,” which places limits the size of new single family homes. Those streets are expected to be controlled by a homeowners association that only has 65 members and thousands of feet of asphalt to repair and replace. The owners want to hack into environmentally sensitive and historic areas to remove trees and sequester an eagle’s nesting area into the smallest community parcel possible. It’s really a dreadful plan (as most of Ultron’s tend to be). 

For an upfront comparison between what’s currently proposed and the Affordable Talaris Design Group schemes, here are some of the improvements at the broadest scale, put together in a handy chart. Given the constraints of early conceptual plans, their estimates on tree removal and units are approximate, but it shows how the existing proposal fails across the board.

What if the Talaris design considered landmark preservation?

The Talaris Conference Center and site is a registered Historic Landmark with the City of Seattle. The site received the designation because it “integrates a modernist landscape design and master plan by Richard Haag Associates with modernist buildings designed by NBBJ.” So, instead of just façadism, Talaris is historic because of both the buildings and the landscape they are surrounded by. 

Taking cues from the actual site and similar buildings from that time, the Design Group put together a proposal that would preserve all the existing buildings and the focal points they surround. The team imagined new uses for the preserved structures, transforming the conference center to a community center and the hotel into housing. The existing apartments in the northwest corner would be joined by similar units to create a strong cluster. New buildings along 40th Avenue NE would surround a pedestrian courtyard from the north side and work with the historic buildings at that corner. Building along the southeast would more reflect the residential lots abutting that side of the site.

What if the Talaris design considered saving trees?

In addition to the historic designation, the Talaris site is impacted by several ecological features, including a slope extending from north to southwest. The Design Group did research on daylighting Yesler Creek, taking the waterway out of its current underground pipe and opening it as an amenity and natural resource. Unfortunately, (and to some disappointment) the feasibility of such a plan just is not there at the moment due to funding and departmental inertia. However, because the design does not envision dividing the Talaris property up into individual lots, future daylighting of Yesler Creek remains a possibility. So the Design Group focused on preserving as many trees as possible, which had the added benefit of keeping development out of the most impacted land in the southwest corner of the site. 

That southwest corner of the site is vital. The current green space and trees hide the fact it is actually a wetland. The strange intersection of 41st Street and Surber Drive at that corner also conceals how connected the site could be to the Union Bay Boglands and Natural Area just on the other side of the roadway. The Design Group’s work to preserve trees on the Talaris site extends the Union Bay green space into the Talaris site, an absolute departure from the golf course lawns currently proposed.

The development sites included in their design focus on the areas already impacted by buildings between the site’s existing roads. Four historic buildings would go, replaced by more significant structures, while the proposed street pattern removes a lot of the site’s current surface parking and puts together a smarter network of roads and walking paths. What’s interesting about this plan is how well it could mesh with the co-op and communal living arrangements that haven’t quite arrived in the United States yet, like baugruppen, which means “building groups” in German and refers to a type of co-housing that has taken off in parts of Europe. It helps that the team used some baugruppen concepts for design cues, allowing for the designs to question how we want to live, and whether we need to be dependent on cars and multi-million dollar mortgages to shelter in Seattle. The evocative schemes resoundingly say “no.”

What if the Talaris design considered focusing on density?

Nothing about the current Talaris proposal centered on 65 single-family detached home considers density. The surrounding city, however, does. The walkscore on the northwest corner of the Talaris site is 82, meaning most errands can be accomplished on foot. However, at the opposite corner of the site, the walkscore plummets to 62, keeping most people in their cars. With the incredible amenity of the Burke Gilman Trail right across Sand Point Way, two light rail stops within a mile and a half, and every bit of necessary shopping over at University Village (except a movie theater), the Talaris site is an urban location.

The Design Group’s third proposal focused on density recognizes we are in a climate emergency, a housing emergency, and an affordability emergency. Instead of leaving the best parts of the Talaris site as an enclave accessible to the very few, the team crafted a strategy to maximize density. The proposal is not all towers, however, as the team recognized the unique shape of the whole property and used it to their advantage. The pond, plantings, and curvilinear design of the landscape that won the site historic preservation are all preserved, even if some of the smaller buildings are not, a design that allows the buildings to step down across the landscape.

Given the opportunity to vote between the three options, I would ask to split the question. Talaris is unique because it is an open piece of property at the hinge of growing density along Sand Point to the north and neighborhood residential along 41st Street to the south. The density options for Scheme 3 are perfect along the north half of the site, potentially stopping north of 43rd Street. Apartments and condos can back up to existing buildings and the maximum number of units can look into the large cluster of saved trees and preserved historic buildings. Smart design of the new buildings closest to the open space can reflect the site’s natural beauty, while maximizing the amount of people who have the opportunity to live close to it.

Along the south, I really like the smaller units and large southwest buffer of the Scheme 1 – Landmark Preservation option. Plus it adds housing on both sides of the new street on the east side of the property. No reason to pour asphalt if it’s only half used. I’m undecided about how much some of the new buildings’ designs need to reflect exactly the modernist historic buildings. To be honest, the smaller units put me in mind of accessory unit courtyards or – are you ready? – the famous Singles’ Coryell Court apartment building in Capitol Hill. It’s not like such things were never built in Seattle before. Imagine if they could be again.

What if Talaris made Seattle better?

And that’s the real success of the work that Affordable Talaris has done. They’ve offered outreach in the face of closed development processes, creativity in the face of skull wrenching tedium, options in the face of monotony. During the past year, this team of volunteers has come up with real opportunities for what could go on the site that respects Talaris’ ecology, history, and future. Their work proposes multiple ways to get to a better end result.

In contrast, the current Talaris proposal is a one-size-fits-all plan. Have land, will build McMansion. An over-mortgaged and over-parked pile of rooflines overlooking bulldozed trees and other McMansions, accessible to a privileged few. Just like that application locked up in some EIS purgatory, the suburban sprawl it proposes is locked in a past of private streets, gated enclaves, and two-car garages. It’s a wheezing past, probably because of all the trees it chops down.

Instead of withering climate arson and monotone housing only for the privileged, Affordable Talaris’ three schemes show understanding, respect, and creativity for the site and the city that surrounds it. We’ve learned that one-size-fits-all housing really only means one-size-for-the-wealthy. Seattle is rejecting that approach on many different fronts. It needs to reject McManions in city limits once more, and completely discard the current Talaris application. If they decide to make any moves, the owners can come back with a proposal that reflects some or all of the well conceived and truly visionary concepts put together by Affordable Talaris. An affordable Talaris is the cornerstone of a better Seattle to come. 

The post As Developer Stalls, Affordable Talaris Offers Greener Vision first appeared on The Urbanist.

Wohnungspolitik sets the direction for affordable housing policies, how rents are regulated, what rights renters have, how cities grow, where cities grow, and who has the right to them. Wohnungspolitik can be a means of guiding a city to be more inclusive and equitable. In the United States, Wohnungspolitik have largely been oriented around homeownership, and have largely been about exclusion and exacerbating inequality.

Wohnungspolitik can give a discrete direction, or a guiding vision, towards how a city or state regulates or circumnavigates the housing market, or sets affordable housing policies. It can foster engagement and support on release of land, urban development, and renewal.

A comprehensive and active Wohnungspolitik is common in left-leaning European cities with a high quality of life. It shouldn’t be surprising that these cities are dominated by renters, and largely have democratic socialist or green leaders. In Europe, neither of these parties are beholden to homeowners and there is virtually no single-family zoning anyway (as it should be). It is surprisingly wonderful, actually. There is no unified Wohnungspolitik, and here in Germany, the B’90/die Grünen (Alliance ‘90/the Green Party), die Linke (the Left party), the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany), and others all generally have their Wohnungspolitik front and center.

Wohnungspolitik predate the European housing shortages of World War II, though their proliferation afterwards has had a significant effect on how cities have evolved the last 50 years. Housing crises prior to World War I led to the collaboration and creation of both nonprofit building societies, and large housing cooperatives—many still active today. It was a commanding and radical Wohnungspolitik that led to the rise of the socialist party in Red Vienna. Their Wohnungspolitik intersected with education, healthcare, transportation, and employment, and shaped housing policies that continue to contribute to Vienna’s high quality of life today. It’s is a Wohnungspolitik that has led to dense, livable, sustainable, transit-adjacent housing complexes, interlaced with schools, daycares, and community amenities—all with a high level of economic diversity.

The city of Zurich maintains an active Wohnungspolitik as well. In 2011, a referendum was passed clarifying that public land should be utilized for housing cooperatives. By 2050, the city is planning for a third of all rentals to be a form of nonprofit housing—a policy that is directly influenced by the referendum (as a comparison, in Seattle, less than 10% of all rentals are nonprofit). Some of the most stunning cooperatives I’ve ever seen are in Zurich (some long, good reads here and here).

Munich’s had an active Wohnungspolitik for decades, the latest policies revolve around a progressive and rapid push for new mixed-income, mixed-tenure housing and neighborhoods, called the Wohnungsbauoffensive. These new urban neighborhoods—like Freiham Nord—are dense and incorporate jobs, schools, daycares, transit, bike ways, open space, and provide an excellent model of how to grow more sustainably and equitably. Likewise, Leipzig has some great policies, and maintains wonderful publications on its own Wohnungspolitik, clarifying what its aims are, for whomst, and why.

With growing homelessness, stagnant wages exacerbating housing unaffordability, and exclusionary zoning induced supercommutes—there is much need, and much urgency. However, in part, due to the influence of both tenants’ rights and YIMBYish groups, we are seeing a resurgence in housing politics at the national level, and it is incredibly encouraging. The People’s Policy Project released a report on Social Housing last year. Data for Progress released their Homes For All report in May. Last month, People’s Action’s Homes Guarantee paper was also dropped.

On the political side, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have all put forth some of the most progressive housing platforms since The New Deal. There is also a groundswell at the local level. In Seattle, District 4 candidate Shaun Scott has vociferously argued for some of the most progressive, pro-renter housing policies we’ve seen in a long time—and importantly, tying those policies to addressing inequality and climate change. Notably, his conservative, corporate-backed opponent is a NIMBY backed by the same wealthy homeowners who have spent decades exacerbating Seattle’s housing crisis by working to block new housing from most of the city’s land area.

The politics of housing in Seattle have been dominated by homeowners for nearly a century, despite a significant share of renters for decades. It was homeowners who pushed the city to adopt a zoning ordinance in 1923, making it illegal to build apartments in most of the city and further entrench the region’s sprawl for decades to come. It was homeowners who killed the Open Housing referendum in 1964. It was homeowners who prevented the city from building low-income missing middle housing in single-family zones in the 1970s. It was homeowners who killed rent control in the 1980s. It was homeowners who dominated neighborhood planning of the 1990s, killing a 25% affordable housing requirement and increasing displacement risk by limiting new housing to where existing multifamily homes already existed.

It was a glorified homeowners association (HOA) that sued the city to kill the modest affordable housing rezones of MHA. It was homeowners that sued to delay Fort Lawton’s affordable housing for a decade. It was homeowners that abused the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to try and kill accessory dwelling unit liberalization. It was homeowners that tried to kill parking reform… You see where I am going on this.

Today, according to the latest American Community Survey (ACS) data, Seattle is majority renter, and it isn’t even close. As the city continues to densify, this gap will continue to increase. However, this is a great thing for progressive policies, especially around housing and land use.

Wohnungspolitik affect us all. It affects how we live, how large our carbon footprints are. It consumes much of our income. The policies that have affected housing in the United States have largely been drawn up behind closed doors to the benefit of the wealthy. An active Wohnungspolitikcan bring clarity and transparency. It can also bring sustainability and solidarity. It provides support for non-market interventions like social housing, baugruppen, cooperatives, or dense, car-free, mixed income ecodistricts. No, an active Wohnungspolitik won’t solve capitalism. It won’t solve the housing crisis by itself. But an active Wohnungspolitikcan blunt the effects of an economic system that favors the wealthy, and repeatedly, cruelly strips power and dignity from the working and middle class. And this… This is why Seattle needs a Wohnungspolitik.

This is a cross-post from Mike Eliason’s medium blog.

The post Seattle Needs A Housing Politics Movement Like Germany’s Wohnungspolitik first appeared on The Urbanist.

Unfortunately, given population growth, financial hurdles, land use impediments, and land costs — it is increasingly difficult to build housing that is affordable to the middle class or that could be made available to those who can’t afford anything close to Seattle’s median single family home, which is now (over) $820,000— and climbing. Nearly a fifth of all single family homes in Seattle have no mortgage. Many single-family homes are past their lifespan, requiring energetic and seismic retrofits.

Seattle severely lacks the zoning for affordable multifamily housing. Today, multifamily housing is illegal on 72% of all land in the city where housing is legal (or 80.3% per fancy beans) — a stunning reversal from where things stood a hundred years ago. Seattle’s original land use regulations allowed multifamily housing everywhere in Seattle (yes, everywhere). The introduction of single-family zoning in the 1923 comprehensive plan, and subsequent revisions, made matters worse, with large sections of multifamily land downzoned to zone out affordable and multifamily housing.

This enforced scarcity has driven up the value of all single family homes in Seattle to over a $110 billion dollars (135,000 single-family homes $820,000 median home value). $5.8 billion of that increase came in just one month. What if there was some means of utilizing those increases to fund large quantities of moderately affordable housing, relieving pressure on existing rentals, giving middle class households a foothold in the city, and providing aging residents a means of residing in their neighborhoods in accessible units close to the community they’ve always known?

A cooperative overlay of single-family zoning could be such a vehicle, providing ample, affordable, non-market housing in areas of high opportunity in our city. A cooperative is a group that collectively owns a building (or group of buildings), each person owning a percentage share of the building, with that share entitling them to live in a certain unit in the building. Zero Equity and Limited Equity Co–ops are two forms of cooperatives intended to build and preserve affordable housing by removing the profit motive from housing, and limiting resale value in perpetuity. Cooperatives are nearly a quarter of all homes in Zurich, Switzerland, and the housing politics of that city aim to increase that number going forward. We should follow suit. There is an added benefit with cooperatives, as Washington State regulations around condos are vague, that, when paired with the recession effectively cratered condo construction, and there are added liability and insurance costs associated with condos that co-ops bypass.

The overlay could work like this — homeowners could team up with locals to form a cooperative structure — either through local groups, or with city assistance. The group would progress, and share distribution for units would be straightforward. The cooperative could figure out a repayment method on land, or utilize a ground lease to keep the initial development costs even lower. The cooperative utilizes the land as part of the collateral to obtain its construction loan, and the construction of the cooperative would commence.

What would the physical form of the overlay look like? At a minimum, the city could move forward as with a previously proposed policy to allow triplexes in the massing of current single family zoning. On a typical 5,000 square foot (sf) lot, today, a homeowner or developer can construct a building up to 5,250 sf (1,750 sf x three floors). This could result in a five-unit building with 1,000 sf units. An increase to four floors in or near urban villages would also be beneficial. With a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.4 and a four floor height limit, 7,000 sf buildings on a 5,000 sf lot would be feasible.

The four-floor limit works for a number of reasons. First, it means that the cooperative can be constructed with wood, reducing construction costs. Second, it means that the cooperative can be constructed with or without an elevator — leaving the ground floor unit(s) as accessible. A four floor height limit is keeping within the scale context of three-story single family homes, which the city will continue seeing more of as older homes are replaced by larger ones with no increase in the number of units. The overlay would need to allow for more than eight people living on a single lot. A 7,000 sf building could easily house seven 1,000 sf units, but could also allow for a multitude of options — including larger units for multi-generational housing.

Financing the development is difficult, traditional banks will not finance a co-operative — however local credit unions have expressed an interest in financing co-housing and co-operatives. In Switzerland, the Zuercher Kantonalbank funds a number of cooperative — and Seattle’s about to embark on a study for a municipal bank. The cooperative would use the land and owner investment shares to obtain construction financing, and pay off the mortgage through rents, which are kept low by removing the land procurement issue of typical development. An alternative structure would be a syndicate —a linked network of projects (a la the mietshaeuser syndikat) that could be used to scale up the number of cooperatives by leveraging a monthly solidarity fund among members, and through the connected value of the projects as loans are paid down.

The end result of the cooperative overlay would be the potential for several thousand high-quality, affordable, family-sized, accessible homes. These cooperatives, formed by residents in conjunction with homeowners, would ensure that residents and existing homeowners could age in place. They would reduce displacement risk — as no residents would be displaced, and they would increase housing security at a time where security of tenure is increasingly difficult.

Such a scheme could be a model for the region, if not the nation. However, until multifamily and affordable housing are once again legal everywhere housing is legal in Seattle, we won’t begin to come close to addressing our housing crisis.

This featured image is a cooperative with a prefabricated wood facade in Vienna’s Seestadt Aspern, foto by author. This is a cross-post that first appeared on Mike Eliason’s Medium blog.

Housing Policy Lessons From Vienna, Part II

The post Allow Cooperatives in Seattle’s Single Family Zones to Boost Affordable Housing first appeared on The Urbanist.

Imagine with me: what if Seattle had a model for building multi-family housing that was more affordable and greener than what we’re currently building?  Okay, you’ve already heard that part; but what if the City actively supported that model–even made it a centerpiece of the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA)?  This article proposes establishing a city-wide policy to support Building Communities.

Baugruppen Bandwagon

Baugruppe (singular) is a German term, meaning ‘building group’–just like it sounds. I prefer a less literal but more evocative translation: ‘building community’. It’s an innovative development approach in the tradition of housing co-ops and intentional communities. For anyone not familiar with the concept, The Urbanist ran a great multi-part series in 2014 (which is a re-post/expansion of articles written by Mike Eliason for Brute Force Collaborative in 2013), which generated a lot of interest on urbanist sites like Grist and Curbed.

Building Communities remain one of the most compelling solutions to our housing affordability problem–they have been a sort of grail for urbanists. In fact, I have a sense that if you got together all of the people in this city who are mildly (or not so mildly) obsessed with this idea, you could…well, start a baugruppe. However, they have also felt slightly out of reach; perhaps unrealistic, in our current political and economic climate. Development costs are high, timelines are slow, banks are reluctant to finance unfamiliar approaches, neighborhood opposition…the list is long.

But what if the change we need to make this possible isn’t fundamental? What if it just needs a little direct support, like some regulatory infrastructure provided by the City?

Living Building Challenged

Seattle has several policies and programs to support green building, including the recently extended Living Building Pilot Program (LBPP), which is intended to promote extremely high performance buildings along the lines of Capitol Hill’s Bullitt Center. After seven years, the pilot has been met by exactly two buildings: Bullitt and Stone 34 in Wallingford.

The intention is not to criticize the pilot, but to suggest an opportunity…  We have a proven development model that could provide badly needed housing more affordably than the private market; and we have a City program that needs projects. A number of European municipalities have identified ways to support Building Communities.

Whether through the LBPP, or as a new stand-alone policy, this is how I envision it working in Seattle:

1. The City creates a new Land Use designation: ‘Building Community.’

This is important to differentiate Building Communities from other uses, in particular from single-family housing and traditional multi-family development. This step may even be legally necessary, since zoning laws require that similar uses be treated similarly, and the point is to preference Building Communities over other uses. This step would also define what a Building Community is: how large, how small, where allowed, etc.

This article doesn’t get into the politics of implementation (that needs its own article), but this is one place where the City could anticipate those politics while supporting the fundamental purpose of Building Communities. For example, eliminating parking requirements but requiring deed restrictions (or similar) on individual car ownership. Or reducing certain lot coverage / setback requirements in exchange for form-based design standards. You could even cap the number of units, particularly if using the pilot approach (while I’m generally opposed to this, the Building Community model doesn’t lend itself to large groups anyway).

The kicker: within those parameters, Building Communities would be allowed anywhere in Seattle that allows residential development.

2. The City provides financial backing.

This could be direct (e.g. providing funding from an innovation fund, or similar) but would more likely be indirect. Guaranteeing loans, issuing construction bonds, or any other mechanism that reduces the cost of financing would dramatically decrease overall project cost. (An unfamiliar development model will be considered higher risk, which means higher rates to borrow money. This is certainly not the only challenge for Building Communities, but it is a major one.) We have reached the outside edge of my expertise, in terms of the best approach for financial support; if you have knowledge in this area, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!

Last, Building Communities would go through priority permitting, which is another form of direct financial support (the development review and approval process can be extremely expensive). This is directly connected to the third and final part of the policy:

3. The City mandates the greenest residential buildings in Seattle.

This is where it makes sense to connect this to the LB Pilot Program, though it’s not strictly necessary. Building Community projects would be required to meet exceptionally high performance standards for green building–either Living Building or Passive house (Passivhaus).

Building Communities resolve one of the fundamental issues with developing to these standards: split incentive. High performance green building, at this level, costs more up front–sometimes significantly more. In traditional development, the developer pays these initial costs, but the building owner reaps the benefit. These are almost never the same people. Typically, the increased cost gets passed on to the tenants. In a Building Community, the developers are the owners are the tenants. They have every incentive to spend more up front to build the healthiest, most efficient building possible.

There is abundant precedent for this ‘trade’ – the City grants exemptions from normal rules (e.g. greater density than otherwise allowed), in exchange for advancing City priorities like green building (and affordable housing). Functionally, this is just residential incentive zoning.

If it’s not HALA or homelessness, we’re not interested

Why would the City be interested in pursuing such a policy? And who in their right mind would propose another major land use change right now!? The elegance of this proposal (if I may use that word–feel free to express your disagreement in the comments) is in how well it supports numerous City priorities, and how well it integrates with, or directly supports, existing efforts.

• Housing affordability. It accelerates development of less expensive housing without dipping into the housing levy, or otherwise competing for Affordable Housing funding (Building Communities are not Affordable Housing per se, meaning they are not designated for specific percent of median income).
• Transit-oriented development. It is potentially a mechanism for reducing displacement from upzoning, by allowing residents to form a Building Community instead of being priced out of new speculative development. This is hugely important because Seattle is going to upzone a lot of neighborhoods in the years to come–between HALA, expanding Urban Growth Boundaries (e.g. Urban Villages), and around new transit investments. (There is an intriguing opportunity with ST3, where Sound Transit is required to prioritize affordable housing on their property.)
• High-performance green building. It advances sustainable development beyond pretty much anything being built in the City today.

A Building Community policy wouldn’t need to compete with HALA, it could just be a new component. By targeting transit access and sustainable development in specific communities, it supports the Race and Social Justice Initiative (especially if it does prove effective in reducing displacement). It does more than any current approach to support the City’s sustainability and climate goals…I could go on. I suspect that in the scheme of things, even with financial support of one kind or another, it wouldn’t even cost much.

So, who wants to help me draft a policy, so we can all finally get our baugruppe?!

The featured image is a Baugruppe in Berlin-Friedrichshagen, credit to Kaden Klingbeil Architects.

The post Bringing Baugruppe To Seattle first appeared on The Urbanist.

With this series, I initially set out to highlight some of the aspects of baugruppen I found intriguing, and the reasoning for this was mostly selfish: I’m an aspiring baugruppee. Can these types of projects be replicated Stateside? I believe so, and I’d love to see jurisdictions prioritize them. But, as in Germany, I think it will take time to gain foothold. There are a few ways this could happen, but first…

A reality check

Regarding Germany, there are a couple of reasons baugruppen are cost-competitive: the financing terms, taxes and fees aren’t drastically different for either turnkey or BGs. German home loans generally require a significant down payment (up to or over 20%), whereas a baugruppe member’s loan are generally higher, around 30% (or more, potentially).

While seemingly vast, baugruppen typically save 15% over turnkey projects. For comparable units, BGs require slightly more up front, but result in much lower total and monthly payments. The tradeoff being a tailored unit, bombtastic communal spaces, etc.

Why is this relevant to the US market? I don’t foresee legal or social obstacles to forming a baugruppe–judging by conversations/ tweets/emails–many others love this idea, and legal structures (e.g. LLCs) exist for taking on project development. Rather, it is the financial side that will probably be the highest hurdle.

Once a group unites around a concept or idea, they’ll form a legal structure in order to protect themselves, make payments, etc. Those are relatively easy and don’t incur much cost. The purchase of land and financing of construction, however, are quite the opposite. The first wave of projects will probably require self-financing, which could affect if affordable housing plays a role unless owners push to include it.

Alternatively, a green, community bank or better yet, a progressive city, could step in and assist through a variety of means. I do think that if this shows to be a successful, affordable model–jurisdictions will step in, and the financing hurdle becomes lower.

Self-financed

Banks will likely be reluctant to lend without prior experience with baugruppen, so early groups will likely need to self-finance/develop their projects. There is precedent for this–initial BGs in Germany had difficulty obtaining funding and so members used personal savings, borrowed money, and even undertook some of the construction themselves. This is probably how the ‘first wave’ of these projects would have to be taken on Stateside and is also not without precedent in the US.

Being innovative/groundbreaking early adopters can be hard! This is also an issue the co-housing community is pretty familiar with, as several have had to take this route. There are a handful of urban co-housing projects that could serve as a good model such as the eastern village (Treehugger), and DurhamCentralPark. That last one seems to be BG-esque: urban, dense, and is listed as ‘self developed’ on the co-housing website. I like where it is headed, and hope they open source their process. That being said, there is room for…

City/State financing

In Germany, a number of progressive cities have taken the lead in prioritizing, facilitating, incentivizing, and in some cases, funding baugruppen. Wouldn’t it be phenomenal if, within the halls of city government, there existed a department with the ability to finance affordable housing to ensure diverse citizenry, strong tax base, jobs, etc, as in these incredible German jurisdictions? Perhaps in Seattle, the Office of Economic Development (OED) or Seattle Investment Fund‘s NMTC’s could be reconfigured to prioritize affordable housing (instead of, say, above-market commercial offices).

Though scrubbed from the site, OED previously claimed to provide, ‘low interest loans for mid-sized and large mixed-use and commercial projects. Both for-profit and non-profit developers or community developers may be eligible.’ Hmmm… we may be getting somewhere. Eligibility requirements? Achieve ‘significant public benefits including:’

Creation of jobs:

Several ongoing, mid-scale baugruppen projects would provide quality construction jobs with prevailing wage requirements. That these workers could potentially afford to own in projects they build would be a significant advantage for the city (and model for the country!). And BGs could even have retail spaces to activate the street-level facade–more jobs! Winning!

‘Affordable housing that will support neighborhood businesses while helping to preserve a diverse economic base of residents:’

We’ve shown that baugruppen can be an innovative, cost-effective alternative to turnkey projects, including the potential for ultra-low maintenance and operational costs. Additionally, BGs have the potential for more economically, racially and socially diverse ownership versus traditional development. Furthermore, the City could make a requirement for a percentage to be allocated for families, elderly, etc. Boom!

‘Redevelopment of abandoned or underutilized property that will contribute to the revitalization of the City’s business districts.’

Baugruppen and abandoned/vacant lots near business districts sounds like a winning combination if ever I heard one. This is how the innovative eco-districts in Freiburg (Vauban) and Thuebingen actually started. Affordably housing community-oriented groups in buildings near communities they want to live in? Isn’t this what we should already be striving for in urban environs? I’d like to think there may be some synergy here!

Innovative lenders

Banks will be reluctant to lend money to groups that don’t have a construction background (hence incorporation of Construction PMs on projects), but I believe this is a market where smart, innovative, sustainability, and community-focused banks could thrive. Maybe I’ve been forced to watch ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ one too many times, but I think these are the exact kinds of community investments that pay big dividends.

Again, this is not without precedent: Shorebank Pacific (now one pacific coast bank) has provided loans for co-housing projects in the past, as have others. Historically they haven’t been predominantly multifamily urban projects, so whether or not these organizations would find interest in this market is unclear.

In Germany, while there was reluctance, there have been a couple of banks that have realized the potential in baugruppen, and have divisions willing to finance them. I imagine that a similar course would result Stateside after initial proof of concepts have been built and everyone sees how awesome they are. Additionally, jurisdictions incentivizing/prioritizing BGs would probably go a long way to getting banks more interested in lending on these kinds of projects.

Concluding thoughts

So… is this all just a pipe dream? If we’re going to make Seattle a green leader (and beat Freiburg!) then we’ll need affordable, urban innovations like baugruppen to succeed, along with the regulatory and financial tools to organize and construct them. At some point, City Hall will have to acknowledge existing ‘free market’ models are entirely insufficient for low,  moderate, or even upper-middle income families in Seattle, and will only get worse without drastic intervention.

What green-focused City government wouldn’t want urban, uber-sustainable, hyper-comfortable, high quality, well-designed, prefabricated, bike-friendly, car-free, affordable, jointly-built housing inhabited by racially and economically diverse homeowners making stronger communities with reliable tax bases? If that’s a pipe dream, then I must be crazy, because it’s the exact urban model I’d dwell in, along with pretty much everyone I know, if there existed the space in ‘progressive’ cities to allow it to develop.

As I stated in my first BG post, I’m very interested in sowing the seeds of a baugruppe here in Seattle. I’d prefer not to uproot and move back to Freiburg to find this kind of urban construct. I would absolutely love to see a car-free, bike centric, passivhaus/living building challenge project that housed a diversity of inhabitants that were also kindred spirits. I’ll have more thoughts on how to go about this soon…

The post Baugruppen: Yes In Our Back Yard! first appeared on The Urbanist.

So, how is it that baugruppen seemingly excel on the community cohesiveness and livability front over turn-key projects? I think there a few moving parts to this. As noted, baugruppen tend to form or ‘market’ around specific concepts or values, cities are pushing and rewarding diversity and livability of BGs, and the arduous, multi-year democratic process undertaken to actually construct the cooperatively-owned project seems to bring about cohesiveness as well (yes, that’s right, multi-year, as in 2+ years. Time is the largest advantage a turnkey project has over BGs).

There are a number of ways baugruppen are formed – some are initiated by friends or acquaintances that already share a common bond or set of core values. Others need additional members, and declare a strong central concept (bikes only! DINKS ok! Intergenerational granola-loving families!), a rallying cry for those that may be interested in joining up.

Through various online portals (including cities keen to advance such developments – hint, hint Seattle), community meetings and word of mouth – groups are completed. Of all the projects I’ve looked at, the FAHRRADLOFT seems to do this rather well (or maybe just hits at the type of BG in which I’d like to dwell – unsure!).

This is an important step in the process – declaring what you are about, be it uber-green living, diversity, gardeners, etc – a project won’t get built if it doesn’t get enough members. The big advantage in both of these scenarios is that you know, or will soon enough, who your neighbors will be at project completion. Along with the stated concept is the obligatory group photo and/or groundbreaking!

Once formed, a large amount of community buy-in must take place. To actually build a baugruppe is no small feat. Like co-housing, the design process of many baugruppen is driven by future tenants. Concepts, themes and ideas are developed, processes are formulated to move project planning forward. The land situation must be worked out. Architects work with the owners on the design – both groups bringing needs and constraints to the table.

This is not usually the case with developer-initiated projects. However, on the best projects, it is this close collaboration with clients that really drives success. There has to be consensus amongst the members to move forward, schedules have to be maintained. This is a process of give and take – actual democracy in action!

Though the process may take more time (e.g. weekly meetings for up to and over a year) and definitely involves challenges (There should be bike storage! The stairs should be yellow!) – it seems like a great way to engage with your future neighbors while formulating a building that meets your needs in a way other models can’t or won’t.

Imagine having a say in whether or not your building would have a roof terrace, or how your building engages the public! Want to implement ecological and social requirements for a project? Then do it! How about prioritizing car-free living like in Vauban? Go for it! This process seems to induce a greater sense of pride, respect and sense of community than other models – perhaps owing to the greater degree of trust and respect garnered through the planning process.

Cities can also play a large part in the success of baugruppen. As previously discussed, there are a multitude of advantages for cities – solid taxes bases, affordable housing, increased density, diverse citizenry to name a few. Because of this, many jurisdictions go out of their way to not only promote BGs, but encourage stronger forms of them. They do this through the sale of city land to the group deemed most diverse/ecologically friendly/kid friendly/etc. They also do this through the appointing of facilitators, promotion of projects – built and in planning, and maybe more interestingly, holding the sale of city land while a BG gets it’s planning figured out and funding in order. Yep, you read that right – some jurisdictions are so gung ho for baugruppen, they’ll delay the sale of land to ensure the project is done right. Talk about winning on all fronts!

Mostly, though, I think it’s the intentional [urban] community that forms – a close knit bunch that looks out for each other, works together, genuinely cares about the place in which they dwell. Is this a critique on contemporary urban dwelling? Is affordable communal dwelling, then, the biggest advantage to baugruppen? I believe it is. Yes, there is the opportunity for long term financial benefit through reduced construction costs/loans and operational energy (passivhaus) – but it is the communal aspect of BGs that seems to drive success larger than anything else. Per the NYT article on roedig.schoep stunning A52, ‘Mr. Roedig and Mr. Schop point out that they live in the building, not just their own apartment. The building was designed to be a kind of modern-day kibbutz.’ So… Maybe it doesn’t take a whole village… Maybe it just takes a baugruppe. With a community garden. That needs a little water.

The post Baugruppen: Instant Community (Just Add Water) first appeared on The Urbanist.

While I may have a slight affinity for homogenous, Soviet-bloc housing (panelák!)–it’s only because they’re ripe for Passivhaus retrofits! However, diversity in the built environment is a positive thing. In materials, yes, but also in form and typology.

Baugruppen fit the bill here really, really, well–as they come in a variety of shapes and sizes, infills or housing estates. Conceivably any project size could be possible, and there are examples ranging from just two units (e.g. Tuebingen’s Kristall) to over a hundred. That being said, there does seem to be a ‘sweet spot’ regarding the number of units–and that seems to range around 15-30 units. I assume this is mainly owing to the difficulties of financing larger, more complex projects and decision-making in larger groups.

An interesting aspect with larger schemes is that they may be divided into separate buildings (sometimes conjoined, sometimes not), with different firms authoring different aspects. This allows for variability with a given framework, while still maintaining a healthy amount of density. One example of this is Dennewitz EINS, which is being spearheaded by dmsw architekten (haus a), roedig.schop (haus C) and sieglundalbert: Architektur (haus b).

A large project in planning, also with multiple firms (Deimel Oelschläger, dmsw architekten & ZOOM architekten), is the ambitious Newtonprojekt, a 100-unit plusenergiehaus (e.g. beyond net zero) settlement in Adlershof (Berlin). The project will feature a diverse cross section of residents and a variety of housing typologies in 9 buildings with ample green space. Project specs and write up with renderings.

The R50 is an 18 unit, 7-story BG just around the corner from Checkpoint Charlie. The project, by Heide & Von Beckerath, sports a community room (ground floor) and roof terrace. I’m actually enthralled by this project, the images are stunning–floor-to-ceiling glass, yet still space for insulation! An interesting interview with Jesko Fezer of ifau on gentrification issues and process at urbanophil, and a short documentary with English transcript.

The 7-story, 11-unit baugruppe on Strassburger Strasse 39 (Prenzlauer Berg) is another project exuding confidence in the middle of the city. It consists of a variety of unit types, and is a solid, urban building–Seattle should be copying this. Designed by zoom architekten, it also has a small maisonette to the rear of the lot, separate from the main house. Courtyard glazing is extensive with nearly full-width balconies. Really dig the color play on the glass panels on the street facade (perhaps a nod to sauerbruch + hutton?). The project also includes a retail space on the ground floor.

While some may see BGs as being in direct competition with developer-driven projects–many BGs operating in the free(er) market (e.g. Berlin) seem to occupy a different space, generally working with smaller or awkwardly shaped lots developers may not be interested in, as they entail higher risk or less profit. They also address issues of affordability better than a lot of developer-driven projects. I’m incredibly impressed with the variation in apartment types/sizes/configuration, and as of now I’m pretty convinced there isn’t a better model for urban living than this. +1 BGs.

The post Baugruppen: Sizes Vary by Manufacturer first appeared on The Urbanist.

Baugruppen provide a vehicle for experimental modes of constructing versus traditional models of housing, where experimentation and innovation can prove difficult. Due to the nature of designing and building in a group, BGs allow owners leeway in the direction they’d like their project to go, or what type of structure the building should have. They allow the potential to incorporate highly individualized units, extremely innovative construction methods (prefab, CLT, brettstapel!), uber green buildings (passivhaus!) – all whilst remaining relatively affordable. And, in some cases, it is this experimental nature that brings the cost down.

Energy Efficiency

Previously, I wrote that individual BG owners have access to reduced rates for hitting levels of efficiency (via the state-owned bank, KfW). Some locations also give a further subsidy for higher levels of efficiency, such as those meeting Passivhaus (which, depending on jurisdiction, can entail little cost increase for window/door packages, ventilation system and increased insulation levels over ‘barely legal’ construction). For Vauban, there was an efficiency requirement for all projects, and several ended up meeting (or exceeding) Passivhaus. These projects provide a high level of comfort, acoustic privacy, and low operating costs – all quite handy for urban housing, or even housing geared towards the elderly. As Passivhaus has becomes easier to meet (effectively no up charge on certain typologies), the transition to net zero PHs, or even plusenergie (energy positive) projects, is already underway. Awe. Some!

The Baugemeinschaft Sophienallee is a really well done multifamily Passivhaus by Neustadt Architekten, located in Hamburg’s dense borough Eimsbüttel. The 5-story, 16-unit project features a variety of unit sizes, and corresponding diversity in owners (seniors, young families, DINKs, singles), roof terrace, garden and two community rooms.  Construction costs were about $250/sf. Drawings, photos and details via deutschebauzeitungen, and Passivhaus stats also available.

Sustainability

BGs have the option of pushing as far as their budget will allow in terms of materials and structure. The group may feel that certain forms of construction are advantageous in terms of embodied energy or carbon (e.g. CLT v. concrete) – and it’s entirely possible given the right approach, those methods may even cost less as well. For the BG, being ecologically-minded may not be an afterthought, they may even be willing to take on the risk of an all-wood building whereas a risk-averse developer might avoid that route. They can debate the merits of EPS, XPS, cork  in financial terms yes, but also through other lenses.

The 3xgruen BG (also by A52’s designer, roedig.schop architekten) is a phenomenal, jaw-dropping game-changing 5-story,13-unit wood building incorporating CLT and prefabricated walls. In terms of sustainability + affordability + density, I’m not sure a better project exists (and I would know!). Construction costs are incredible (about $175/sf gross) – even though the quality is quite high. This low-energy project was envisioned as a prototype, with the form and structure being transferable to other sites, which could result in even lower prices (whuuuuuut?!?). Common areas include a garden (kid’s realm!) and roof terrace (adult’s playground!). Truly a stunning urban prototype. Info, drawings and pics from a bauwelt article. Short video of this award winning project is also worth perusal.

Prefab/panelization

Building in urban environs can be difficult, and many urban projects are opting for panelized assemblies to reduce the construction duration. This is advantageous to both developers and baugruppen – for BGs , specifically because the design and decision making process can be quite lengthy.

Kaden Klingbeil’s e3 is an incredible, 7-story wood construction in the heart of Berlin. A lot has been written about this project already, I will just note that not only is it highly innovative – but special permission was required in order to build that tall (hence the adjoining concrete stairwell + elevator). Thankfully, they prevailed, and the world can revel in the beauty of this stunning project, built for around $280/sf. Nice writeup of the architects and project by Joe Mayo’s timbercity. Great video on the project, w/ English subtitles.

The post Baugruppen: Innovative Constructs first appeared on The Urbanist.

The collective economic might of baugruppen offers owner-builders an opportunity for significant savings over traditional developer-driven models, as well as single family houses. As mentioned in part 2 of this series, Tuebingen BGs have resulted in ~15% savings, Berlin BGs roughly 15-25%, with similar savings for Vauban and Hamburg BGs. As a comparison, average cost/sf price in Seattle is roughly $340/sf. Savings of 15% on an 800 sf unit would reduce the cost to ownership by $40k. These savings could allow for the working or creative classes to afford homeownership in urban centers, instead of being driven out by rising costs. For less cost than typical development, owners get a higher-quality product designed to meet their needs; and in Germany, this product is usually more energy efficient, thus ensuring operational cost savings as well. Winning!

There are a couple of ways a BG reduces costs over traditional models. First and foremost, bypassing a developer pulls out the profit they would take on a project, which is not insubstantial. Second, there is little to no marketing of the project – which means no staging/pursuit. Realtors are also generally not in the equation. In Germany, land transfer taxes are also assessed lower than through traditional developments. As previously posted, there are many sources that advertise existing BGs looking for owners, but a lot of groups form amongst existing networks. There are a few Berliner baugruppen in planning, run by the same project management firm, that utilize a web template, mostly just to get the relevant info out there in case they are seeking additional members.

Financing BGs in Germany is, of course, considerably easier. These types of projects have been on the map for nearly two decades now, and there are banks willing to finance them. Cities also assist with legal/financial aspects, and there are additional perks such as eligibility for affordable, city-owned lots. BG owners also have access to low-interest energy efficiency loans and mortgage rates commercial developers don’t.

However, baugruppen are not generally an upper class phenomenon. Homeownership rates in Germany are a third lower than the US, and BGs are seen more as a way for the middle class to afford a residence in the city. The cost to ownership in Germany has generally been much harder than here in the US, requiring down payments of 20% or more. The down payment for a BG can be in the realm of 30%, so upfront costs are higher. In the long run, the total costs are lower, and the monthly payment ends up being pretty affordable as well. The savings rates in Germany, France and Switzerland are roughly triple what they are in the US, so this also changes the equation.

For me, the big point on cost-effectiveness is that, generally, a member gets a unit tailored to their specific needs as well as desired communal spaces if space and budget allows. Developers don’t normally fine-tune projects like this, as it would add cost and time. Additionally, development projects tend to be directed towards the least common denominator user. There are, however, some notable exceptions to this, especially here in Seattle.

Before a BG even brings on an architect (assuming there isn’t one already in the group), they’ll have discussed the type of lifestyle they would like to live, the type of building they would like to dwell in, the type of community they want to be a part of. A bunch of musically-oriented families founding a BG? They might plan a rehearsal space as part of the common area. Older couples might want a co-owned guest unit they could let their friends or children stay in, thus keeping their unit smaller and more affordable. Want a say in what color your facade is? How about typical finishes in common areas? BGs can offer that level of communal authorship.

This affordability does come at a cost: time. It can take several years to form a group, make decisions, find land and then finalize construction. Though developer-driven models can be delayed, that process has little effect on future tenants/owners. This also means there is substantially more personal risk in a BG, as the owners are responsible for delays, cost overruns that they wouldn’t have to deal with in more traditional models. Additionally, if an owner leaves the group or dies mid-construction, the group would have to take up the balance, or as normally happens, find a new member. There have been some failures in the BG community (no system is perfect/risk-free) but with solid project management and a budget-conscience design, this is very rare.

Considering spatial quality, finishes and shared accoutrement, one of the most cost-effective projects I’m aware of is roedig.schop architekten’s 10-unit beauty dubbed A52, initiated in 2003. The project was built for around $200/sf, and here’s the kicker: this pricepoint isn’t for low-end finishes or fixtures. Along with a communal garden, the project incorporates a communal roof terrace, with a small guest apartment shared by all residents, rotated in weekly installments. In order to get buy-in from their other neighbors, the architects offered to accept the last unit (which ended up being the ground floor). This stunning building was featured in the New York Times back in 2011, and features some great quotes from the owners. The 2008:9 konzept: gemeinsam wohnen issue of detail also has a good deal of background, and drawings worth checking out. I’ll be highlighting a few more of their really incredible, urban constructs soon.

Another budget-friendly project that really enthralled me was baugruppe baufreunde in Koeln by office03 // waldmann & jungblut. The project features two ‘bars’ set at either end of a through lot. Between these bars is a common green space. Each of the 18 units has access to ample garden space (ground floor maisonettes) or semi-private roof terrace (upper units). Project costs came in around $155/sf (EUR 4M/3200m²). The site is near shops and cafes, and has access to a multitude of transit options. Check out plans/renderings/model, and fotos.

I could definitely see either of these models working in a place like Seattle, where land or existing units aren’t exactly affordable–and where traditional developer models leave a lot to be desired in terms of cost and how they work with the way one might desire to live. Or at least, how my family would like to live, and at a price point we could afford. Pretty… Pretty… Pretty… Awesome.

Mike Eliason is a certified passivhaus designer, energy geek, and design nerd with an almost fetishistic interest in prefab wood buildings, low-energy architecture, social housing, and all things German. He has lived in Fremont for nearly a decade, and wants Seattle to become a greater version of Freiburg so his wife doesn’t force him to return to live in Vauban. He’s also begun the process of forming a baugruppe.

The post Baugruppen: To Form a More Affordable Urbanism first appeared on The Urbanist.

For this installment of the Baugruppen: Badaβ Concepts series, I’ll be highlighting a few policies cities have enacted to allow this ‘self-organized collaborative building’ thing to grow well. And I do mean well, with tens of thousands of completed units in these cities in just over a decade. As I’d like to see this kind of innovation Stateside, I felt the policy overview a good starting point.

Freiburg, Tuebingen, Hamburg and Berlin are baugruppen hot beds that have shaped and promoted this development on an extensive level. There are others (Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, Leipzig, Muenchen) and the concept is moving into other countries including Austria, France and the UK. These jurisdictions have given a phenomenal amount of support, as they see the obvious benefits–to owners, certainly–but also to the greater community, and have worked diligently to get these built. Proactive governmental agencies can seem rare, but these ones are allowing a truly fundamental shift in the way communities are made (not just buildings!), and we should be copying them where we can.

Tuebingen (BaWu)

With a ‘people over profits’ mentality, Tuebingen’s BG model represents a higher plane of thinking and results in a quality of sustainable urbanism very difficult to come by in developer-driven models. By the mid-90s, Tuebingen was beyond affordable for many residents. Even with a high level of density, housing prices were high and land was scarce (Seattle!). In an effort to adjust this, the City purchased brownfields vacated by NATO in the southern part of town, determined legal limits, and engaged in actual urban planning (gasp!).

Competitions were then initiated, with individual lots being sold to the BG with the best concept (unfathomable!). Cars were kept at the periphery of development, as in Freiburg’s Vauban. Zoning laws were bypassed. Instead, BGs were required to allocate the ground floor for non-residential use, and set development to the block periphery with large areas set aside for semi-private courtyards. According to resident Fabian Betz’s slideshow (pdf) Tuebingen’s BGs resulted in costs 10-20% lower over typical developer models, with higher levels of diversity and ownership amongst younger families.

Vauban/Freiburg (BaWu)

I’ve written ad nauseum on my old blog and on twitter about the BGs in Freiburg’s uber ecodistrict, Vauban. Like Tuebingen, Vauban’s baugruppen scene started to initialize when NATO vacated an existing base. The city purchased the land, and then proceeded to work with a self-organized citizen’s group, Forum Vauban, to design, plan and implement one of the best model ecodistricts I’ve ever seen. Thus, I was rather pleased to discover Joseph Little’s paper, Lessons from Freiburg on Creating a Sustainable Urban Community (pdf) which has some great insights on Freiburg’s wonderful experiment.

What Little highlights, and I believe to be of the greatest consequence, is that Freiburg’s city council made a conscience decision that developmental rights in Vauban would be preferentially given to baugruppen over developers. Joseph correctly points out this leads to a great question ‘what is the best use of this land?’ The city and working group felt that prioritizing affordability (through collaboratively-built projects), would make it attractive and feasible financially for families to live there rather than suburbs.

When Vauban lots were put up for sale and multiple parties expressed interest, bidding wars were skipped for other factors: most diverse scheme, most ecologically sound, etc. Mind, blown! What an incredibly innovative and equitable method to build a city! Freiburg’s city council even provided facilitators to help a baugruppe procure legal and financial representation for their project. To date, Vauban features several completed BGs–along with a self-organized student housing co-op (where several of my friends lived when I worked in Freiburg).

Vauban’s first BG demonstration project was Genova, formed by a number of the participants in the Forum Vauban process. Other projects include a variety of incredible multifamily projects, including the first Passivhaus Baugruppe. Dubbed ‘bauen + wohnen‘ and completed in ’99, it preceded a number of innovative multifamily PH projects and is decades ahead of the curve compared to the U.S.

Forum Vauban’s working group set efficiency standards for buildings in the district which have been met and even exceeded with projects like bauen+ wohnen and Rolf Disch’s Solarsiedlung. The results from Vauban’s BG community appear to have been extremely successful. There have been conferences and workshops to spread the idea beyond Freiburg. Forum Vauban and Oeke-institut e.V. also put together a lengthy report on the social/ecological model district of Vauban (pdf, German) that is worth looking at. In terms of population density–at 5,300 inhabitants over 38 ha–Vauban is denser than over 95% of Seattle, yet it maintains a distinct character and ample open space.

Berlin

Berlin has undertaken a more ‘free-market’ approach, where the City has supported the growth of BGs, but much of it has happened organically. Berlin has a long history of self-organization, and early on there were many vacant lots or dilapidated buildings that could be obtained quite reasonably. Though it started slow, the boom of BGs has been amazing, and the infrastructure that has followed is similarly remarkable. Back in 2007, Michael LaFond wrote in Worldchanging, ‘By 2020 we predict about 5% of the city’s residents to be involved in around 3000 projects, adding up to about 150,000 people.’

The process has been standardized–there is a strong network of organizations, architects, and PMs specializing in the formation and construction of BGs. Berliner baugruppen also seem to push innovative practices more than other cities (passivhaus, Cross Laminated Timber, etc.). Local government has published extensive information for interested parties, including a lengthy report on living in BGs (pdf, some English). Additionally, there are groups that provide consultation, meeting spaces, legal framework and the promotion of strong examples to increase uptake. There are a multitude of websites with information on BGs, including those in planning where potential owner-builders can find their ‘tribe’. Wohnportal-Berlin includes a search option that refines by building type (new/reno), location, and even efficiency class (Passivhaus, KfW 45, etc). There have been countless exhibitions and lectures on BGs, and the city has hosted conferences on experimental housing.

Hamburg

Hamburg has an amazingly robust BG scene. The City’s website contains extensive information on BGs and what the City undertakes to encourage and facilitate their development. Part of that is a department within the city, the Agentur fuer Baugeminschaften, which has overseen and coordination erection of 1800 BGs over the last decade, with several hundred more in planning. Many of those are in the incredible dockside redevelopment, HafenCity.

Looking for land? The department facilitates that as well–Hamburg sets aside nearly 20% of suitable land specifically for BGs. Even then, there is more interest than land! If there is competition for a lot between interested BGs, the City looks at various criteria, including viability, concept originality (uber green academics, car-free Amazonians!), owner diversity, etc. This pushes BGs in the planning stage to be very innovative–such as predominantly immigrants, or single parent households only. Exemplary projects? Check. Looking for your tribe? The city’s site maintains an active list of incomplete BGs looking for owners, including contact info, project description, etc. Like other jurisdictions, savings over traditional models are running 10-20% less expensive for higher quality projects specifically tailored to the end users.

Other jurisdictions also have extensive information for interested parties. Stuttgart has seen a late but healthy start into the scene report, summarized with Neues Urbanes Wohnen in Baugemeinschaften, (New Urban Living in Cooperative Builds, pdf, German). The wohnprojekte-portal functions similar to the Berlin version, except that it can be further refined to all of Germany. Additional locales with BGs (German) on baugemeinschaft.org.

There are a number of solid reasons why Seattle and other cities should be interested in stimulating and facilitating such undertakings. Jobs, legitimately affordable high-quality housing within city limits, maintaining or expanding the tax base, and stimulating development of vacant/awkwardly shaped/smaller lots developers may view as too risky. Yes, there will be hurdles to getting something like this underway, but the frameworks exist and jurisdictions may find the long-term benefits are well worth the short term growing pains–especially versus unplanned growth.

Mike Eliason is a certified passivhaus designer, energy geek, and design nerd with an almost fetishistic interest in prefab wood buildings, low-energy architecture, social housing, and all things German. He has lived in Fremont for nearly a decade, and wants Seattle to become a greater version of Freiburg so his wife doesn’t force him to return to live in Vauban. He’s also begun the process of forming a baugruppe.

The post Baugruppen: Proactive Jurisdictions first appeared on The Urbanist.