In Jack’s blog he wrote about his co-design exercise, which was oriented around understanding the house typologies that participants would like to see in their cohousing scheme, including their type and schedule of accommodation (rooms). Jack did a good job of explaining the process of his exercise and explained the results but I would’ve been interested to see what reflections he made on some of these results more specifically.
For example in Jack’s analysis of the results he gauged that the majority of participants would like to live in apartments but that nobody wanted to live in a single-storey unit. By single-storey unit I assume that Jack means individual units (ie bungalows) but it would’ve been interesting to see what participants cited as the reasoning behind these decisions, in order to better understand why individual single storey units were unpopular whilst apartments (presumably single storey dwellings although not necessarily) were far more popular.
Another of Jack’s results was that two bathrooms and at least two bedrooms were a necessity for all participants which again seems unusual given that some participants in the co-housing scheme were retired couples or retired individuals with guest accommodation available to members of the co-housing scheme communally. In this example I feel as though it would’ve been helpful to explain to participants some of the facilities that they could expect communally before embarking on the exercise. This is something that could’ve been done better in conjunction with our exercise as well, looking at the communally facilities, which also netted a few odd results.
Overall I feel as though Jack’s blog could’ve benefited from a bit more reflection on the results and that both of our exercises could’ve benefited from more integration on the day.
My Blog on our Codesign Exercise: http://www.nclurbandesign.org/2018/05/codesign-exercise-cohousing-communal-facilities/