v illage homes: a case study in community design · utilized a case study approach. he developed...

Francis 23

Village Homes A Case Study In Community DesignMark Francis

Mark Francis FASLA is professor oflandscape architecture at the Univer-sity of California Davis Trained inlandscape architecture and urban de-sign at Berkeley and Harvard hiswork has focused on the use andmeaning of the built and naturallandscape Much of this research hasutilized a case study approach Hedeveloped the case study method forthe Landscape Architecture Founda-tion and serves on their Land andCommunity Design Case Study Initia-tive National Advisory Board

Abstract Village Homes is one of the most publicized built examples of sustainable com-munity design and landscape architecture in the United States Designed and developed byMichael and Judy Corbett in the 1970s Village Homes consists of 242 single- and multi-family residences on sixty acres Houses are planned as energy-conserving buildings aroundcommon open spaces with play areas and shared gardens A sizable part of the developmentis devoted to community open space including orchards vineyards and play areas Mostof the landscape is designed as an edible landscape and is owned and actively managed byits residentsSeen early on by local planners and bankers as a high-risk development Village Homes to-day is one of the most desirable and economically successful developments in California It offers many design and planning lessons useful for community design and landscapearchitecture While widely studied and well documented its impact has not been fullyreviewed The purpose of this case study is to make this knowledge available to practitionersand researchers as well as to provide a critical review of the projectrsquos successes andlimitationsThis case study follows a format developed for the Landscape Architecture Foundation(Francis 1999a 2001a) This is one of three prototype case studies being developed forLAFrsquos Land and Community Design Case Study Initiative (Francis 2001bc Francis2002) It is intended as a prototype place-based case study that will aid others in develop-ing cases of natural and built landscapes

Davis California may be turninginto one of the most innovativetowns in North America in its cur-rent search for new solutions tolow-energy community design(Thayer 1977 p 223)

So begins Rob Thayerrsquosaward-winning article on

Village Homes published over twentyyears ago when construction of Vil-lage Homes first began Thayer sug-gested (1977) and many studies havesince confirmed that Village Homeshas become one of the most innova-tive new neighborhoods built in theUnited States in the past twenty-fiveyears It has also made the commu-nity of Davis as Thayer suggestedone of the leading examples of sus-tainable design in the United States1

Village Homes may in fact be one ofthe most innovative examples of com-munity design since Radburn NewJersey was planned in 1928 VillageHomes is a model community designdistinct from most current new ur-banist proposals It is especially use-ful as an example of sustainable land-scape architecture

The Landscape ArchitectureFoundation selected Village Homesas the first place-based case studyfor its Land and Community DesignCase Study Initiative for several rea-sons Most importantly there is con-siderable case study material alreadyavailable on Village Homes This in-cludes detailed case studies preparedby the Local Government Commis-sion the National Association ofHome Builders the US Departmentof Energy Center of Excellence inSustainable Development the RockyMountain Institute and MITrsquos De-partment of Urban Planning In ad-dition the project designers and de-velopers have published extensiveinformation on the goals and per-ceived outcomes of the project (Cor-bett 1981 Corbett and Corbett 19791983 2000) Several studies includ-ing some useful postoccupancy eval-uations have been completed ofVillage Homes over the years by re-

searchers students and governmen-tal agencies interested in sustainabledevelopment2 Much of this informa-tion is already available but is scat-tered in the literature on communitydesign energy and sustainable devel-opment and located in archival doc-uments obscure web sites graduatetheses and local reports largely inac-cessible to people interested in theproject

Past research on Village Homesmay be helpful to understand its sig-nificance as a model for sustainablecommunity development For ex-ample residents report having twiceas many friends and three timesmore social contacts than residentsin a nearby conventional neighbor-hood in Davis (Lenz 1990) Further-more houses use one-third less en-ergy than other neighborhoods inDavis (Lenz 1990) When first pro-posed the developers and designershad difficulty securing financing forthe project (Corbett and Corbett2000) Village Homes is now ldquoDavisrsquomost desirable subdivisionrdquo withhomes selling at $10ndash25 per squarefoot premium in 30 percent less mar-

Landscape Journal 211-02 ISSN 0277-2426copy 2002 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

W211LJ_ch2 102202 236 PM Page 23

ket time (Coldwell Banker Residen-tial cited in Wilson 1998)

Despite its success and fameVillage Homes has not been repli-cated as a whole While many of its features such as open channeldrainage and passive solar house de-sign have become more standardpractice in community design itsholistic approach has not beenadopted This raises the question ofthe barriers that prevent innovativecommunity design from being morewidely implemented In the case ofVillage Homes an understanding ofits design and development processas well as impacts may help explainits significance and potential forlandscape architecture and commu-nity design (Figure 1)

The Case Study MethodThis case study utilized a

method prepared for the LandscapeArchitecture Foundation (Francis1999a 2001a) The method was de-veloped as a template to provide auniform and comparable way to doc-ument and evaluate landscape archi-tecture projects and issues Threetypes of case studies are being devel-oped by LAFmdashplace-based issue-based and hypothetical case studiesfor teaching This is the first place-based case study developed by LAFwith several others to follow3

The case study method involvesthe collection and analysis of differ-ent kinds of information includingbaseline data role of key project par-ticipants financial aspects projectgoals and the design and decisionmaking process In addition this casedocuments use perceptions uniqueconstraints project success and limi-tations

The methods used to developthis case study included archival re-search of key documents on VillageHomes published reviews of past re-search and case studies on VillageHomes internet searches numerousvisits to the community over twentyyears including behavioral observa-tions and a short time spent living inthe community and studies of chil-dren in Village Homes (Francis 19811985 1988) In addition awards orspecial recognition descriptions in-

terviews with the designersdevelop-ers of the community and interviewswith residents and users non-residents maintenance peoplegardeners were used

24 Landscape Journal

Village Homes Case Study Summary Data 4

Project Name Village HomesLocation Davis California located in Central Valley

PutahCache Creek Bioregion 60 miles north-east of San Francisco and 15 miles west ofSacramento

Date DesignedPlanned 1973ndash1975Construction Completed Built in phases (50 units at a time) from

groundbreaking in 1975 to build out in 1982Land Cost $434000 (in 1974)Development Costs $2329241 (in 1974)Site Improvement Costs $313107 for swimming pool bike paths land-

scapingLender Sacramento Savings BankHouses 600ndash3000 Sq Ft Also a nine-bedroom co-op

house has about a dozen residentsHouse Construction Costs $38 per square foot (1976 dollars)House Building 60 percent built by developer and 40 by

small contractorsInitial Sale Price per Unit $31000ndash$75000Resale Price per Unit $15000ndash$450000 (2000)

Resale $10ndash25 square foot higher than othersales in Davis (1995) sold in 30ndash50 less time(Coldwell Banker)

Return on Investment 23 per annum for 13 investment partnersSize 60 acresDensity 4 dwelling unitsacre (77 dwelling unitsacre

not counting common landscape) 6933people per sq miles Vicinity density 3ndash5 dwelling unitsacre Vicinity 3458 people per square mile

Open Space 25 of site in public and community openspace

Land Use 242 housing units (222 single family units 22apartments) 650 residents Commercial Officespace 4000 sq ft with 15 small businesses in-cluding consulting and professional firmsAgricultural uses 12000 sq ft 12 acres ofgreenbelts and open space 12 acres of com-mon agricultural land two village greensswimming pool community center buildingrestaurant dance studio and day care center

Lot Size Approximately 4000 sq ftLand in Streets and Parking 15 percent in Village Homes 22 percent in

VicinityStreet Widths 23 ft in Village Homes 44 ft VicinityAverage Number of Cars 18 in Village Homes 21 in VicinityLandscape Architect(s) Michael Corbett Town Planners Davis Cali-

forniaClientDeveloper Michael and Judy CorbettManaged By Village Homeowners Association

W211LJ_ch2 102202 236 PM Page 24

Precedents and Historical ContextThe design of Village Homes

was largely influenced by earlier con-cepts and long-standing principles ofcommunity design Mike and JudyCorbett the projectrsquos designers anddevelopers give credit to earliergreenbelt communities in Britainand the United States (Howard 1965Corbett and Corbett 2000) includingplanned communities such as Rad-burn New Jersey and GreenbeltMaryland It was also inspired by cri-tiques of failed efforts at urban devel-opment and renewal in the 1960s (Jacobs 1961) Village Homes wasplanned well before the current in-terest in smart growth and new ur-banism As a result it serves as anoriginal and unique form of plannedcommunity than is currently popular(Duany et al 2000 Calthorpe et al2000) (Figure 2)

Project Developers and PlannersThe developerrsquos background in

architecture town planning ecologyand environmental psychology helpsto explain their goals in designingthe project Michael Corbett is prin-cipal in the consulting firm TownPlanners and author of A Better Placeto Live (Rodale 1981) He served asmayor of Davis in the late 1980s In1999 he was named along with JudyCorbett as a ldquoHero of the Planetrdquo byTime magazine Judy Corbett is thefounder and for the past twenty yearshas served as Executive Director ofthe Local Government Commissiona nonprofit membership organiza-tion made up of almost one thou-sand mayors city council memberscounty supervisors and local govern-ment staff from throughout Califor-

nia and the Western States She hasco-authored several books and guidesfor policymakers on implementingmore livable land use patterns A1974 graduate of the Ecology Gradu-ate Group at the University of Cali-fornia at Davis Judy Corbett hasserved as a board member of theCongress for the New Urbanismsince 1995

Project Background and HistoryMike Corbett describes their

early experience developing the Vil-lage Homes project ldquoWhen I firstpresented the concept plan for Vil-lage Homes to the then City Plan-ning Director for the City of Davisshe sat back in her chair and startedto laugh lsquoThis goes against every-thing I learned in planning schoolChange all of it and come back andthen we can talkrsquo she respondedWhat is remarkable I was able to getabout 90 percent of what was on thatoriginal planrdquo5 Judy Corbett hasstated ldquowe basically had to break al-most every code in the city to get Vil-lage Homes approvedrdquo (Owens 1993p 19) (Figure 3)

And so begins the story of Vil-lage Homes in Davis CaliforniaWhat started out as a visionary plancombining healthy doses of ecologyand sociology eventually became aninternationally recognized built ex-ample of community design Re-garded by some as a one-of-a-kindcommunity and by others as a modelfor sustainable community develop-ment Village Homes is now well

known as an experiment of commu-nity planning in the ranks of Rad-burn New Jersey Reston VirginiaGreenbelt Maryland Sunnyside Gar-dens New York and Milton Keynesin Britain (Howard 1965 Lang 1994Stein 1989)

Interviewed some twenty yearslater Senior Planner Doris Michaelof the City of Davis commented ldquoIthink the strengths of the design arethe sense of community and the feel-ing of belonging to a neighborhoodI like the fact that therersquos a sense ofrecognition and that people careabout who you are People in thiscommunity know each otherrdquo (Fitch1999 p 15) The fact that city plan-ners have done a complete reversalof attitude toward the project reflectsboth its significance in the local com-munity and the changing culture ofdevelopment today

Genesis of ProjectVillage Homes began as the de-

velopersrsquo vision in making what theycall ldquoa better place to liverdquo Born outof social and environmental con-cerns of the 1960s and 1970s VillageHomes was intended as a reflectionof the values of these timesmdashenvi-ronmental sensitivity and social re-sponsibility It began according todeveloper Judy Corbett with a smallgroup of families meeting for a yearto try to create their own communityThe Corbetts later set up a booth atthe first Whole Earth Festival held onthe University of California Daviscampus with sign-up sheets for any-one interested in joining them Morethan thirty families met for about ayear but the group eventually fellapart ldquoPeople decided we couldnrsquotget enough moneyrdquo Mike Corbett re-called (Fitch 1999 p 2)

Writing in their book on VillageHomes some twenty-five years laterthe Corbetts describe their early ex-perience developing Village Homes

When we set out to design andbuild Village Homes in 1972 itseemed unlikely that we would besuccessful We had no financial as-sets and no track record in devel-opment We were embarking on alarge-scale project that incorpo-rated numerous untried and inno-vative features The most likely out-

Francis 25

Figure 1 Panoramic view of Village Homes Photograph by Tom Lamb

W211LJ_ch2 102202 236 PM Page 25

come and the one we expectedwas that we would not succeed butwould be able to publish a bookabout our experiences and de-scribe how a forward-looking com-munity could be designed Ourplanning concepts and designideas might then be useful to oth-ers Luck was on our side It took a

great deal of tenacity and persever-ance but in the end we were ableto overcome multiple obstacles andbuild Village Homes (Corbett andCorbett 2000 p xiii)

The developers describe theirtwo interrelated goals for the com-munity of ldquodesigning a neighbor-

hood which would reduce theamount of energy required to carryout the familyrsquos daily activities andestablishing a sense of communityrdquo(Corbett and Corbett 1983 p 1)These goals are based on a numberof philosophical ideals many com-bining human and natural ecology(Corbett and Corbett 2000) (seeTable 1)

In the early phases of VillageHomes there was a strong pioneeringsense Judy Corbett observes ldquoWedid a lot with community work par-ties building paths and foot bridgesThere was a real strong lsquospirit of thepioneersrsquo we were doing somethingdifferent for ourselves The rest ofDavis thought we were a bunch ofnutty hippies The process was veryunifying sociallyrdquo (Owens 1993 p20) She says ldquoWe put everythinginto the vision and making it workrdquo(personal communication 2000)

Design Development and Decision-Making Process

Design Process The designersand developers used a participatoryapproach to develop the initial plan-ning concepts for the communityThey brought together a group offriends and interested families to dis-cuss how the project should be de-signed ldquoThe goals of this originalgroup who called themselves ldquotheVillagerdquo were visionary

The discussion centered on ashared sense of dislocation discon-nection and powerlessness and ona concern for the environment Wewondered whether it would be pos-sible to recover some of the homieraspects of village life within the con-text of a modern neighborhoodWe believed it should be possibleto design a community so that onemight live more lightly on the landrdquo(Corbett and Corbett 2000 p 23)

Yet the group disbanded after ayear frustrated by the lack of a siteand funds to realize their dream TheCorbetts retreated to develop theirown plan and find willing investorsThe final plan was their own vision ablend of Judy Corbettrsquos backgroundin environmental psychology andMike Corbettrsquos interests in architec-ture and ecology The plan was oneof the first to combine natural ecol-


Figure 2 Aerial view of Village Homes in the mid 1980s

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 26

ogy and social ecology into an inte-grated vision of people nature econ-omy and community

Decision-Making Process Whenthe Corbetts submitted their plan tocity officials in the early 1970s it metwith considerable resistance and hos-tility As Judy Corbett describes theprocess ldquoEveryone had a problemThe police department did not like

the dead-end cul-de-sacs The fire de-partment did not like the narrowstreets The public works departmentdid not like agriculture mixing withresidential And the planning depart-ment picked it apart endlesslyrdquo (Jack-son 1999 p 78)

Even the federal governmentfound cause to question the merits ofthe project ldquoWhile this office is most

sympathetic with your objective con-cerning energy conservation and en-vironmental concerns we feel theproposal requires further studyrdquo saidRichard D Chamberlain area direc-tor for the US Department of Hous-ing and Urban Development at thetime in a letter to Mike CorbettChamberlain questioned havingapartments in the midst of single-family housing providing parkingbays instead of on-street parking andthe orientation of lots He said thecommon areas seemed ill conceivedprovisions for runoff of storm waterinadequate and the idea of having ahomeowner association growing agri-cultural products questionable ldquoItcould well be that the same objectivecan be obtained by enlarging individ-ual lots and substantially eliminatingmuch of the common areardquo he saidnoting such a change would provideindividual homeowners with spacefor garden plots (Fitch 1999 p 2)

The Corbetts responded withthe persistence of missionaries ratherthan the pragmatism of developersNot taking no for an answer ldquothey setup traffic cones in an empty parkinglot to show the fire department thatemergency equipment could easilynavigate the narrow streets even pastparked cars They convinced the po-lice department that putting side-walks behind the houses rather thanin front and eliminating throughwayswould make residents feel safer andVillage Homesrsquo low crime rate hasproved this pointrdquo (Jackson 1999p 78) (Figure 4)

While city staff fought virtuallyevery design concept it was the polit-ical process that rescued the project

Francis 27

Figure 3 Site Plan of Village Homes Courtesy of Mike Corbett

Figure 4 Judy and Mike Corbett usedlarge-scale maps and models to developthe plan for Village Homes Courtesy ofJudy Corbett

Table 1 Assumptions of Sustainable Development Source Corbett and Corbett 2000pp 53ndash60

1 Every living thing survives by numerous and subtle relationships with all living thingsand with the inanimate environment

2 Ecosystems and parts of ecosystems composed of a wide variety of species tend to adaptbetter to environmental changes or human tampering than do those composed offewer species

3 Part of the ecosystem is a complex system of energy transfers that depends ultimatelyon energy input

4 In the long run every one of the humanityrsquos physical needs must be satisfied eitherwithout the use of nonrenewable resources or through recovery and reuse of thoseresources

5 Although humans seem to be the most adaptable of living things we still have certaininherent physical and psychological needs that must be met by the ecosystem thehuman-made physical environment and the social environment

6 Humans are for the most part genetically adapted to the environment that existedabout 200 to 20000 years ago This adaptation involves not just the physical makeupbut also the modes of perception and behavior and relates to the social environmentas well as the physical environment

7 The relationship between people and the environment goes both ways humanityshapes and is shaped by its environment

8 Humans can adapt to a wide range of environmental conditions but the results of theadaptation to inhospitable conditions is temporary or chronic stress

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 27

and allowed it to be built Judy Cor-bett says ldquoWe essentially had to ap-peal all staff decisions to the CityCouncil and fortunately the CityCouncil was very liberal and support-ive of what we were attemptingrdquo(Owens 1993 p 19) After almostthree years of delays and negotia-tions they were allowed to begin con-struction of the first houses in 1975

Financing While the plan wasanything but conventional conven-tional financing was needed to buildthe project Judy Corbett remem-beredrdquo there was a lot of resistance to the project from local banks Wewent to 30 different banks before wegot a loanrdquo (Owens 1993 p 21) Rea-sons they were turned down includedtheir lack of past experience as devel-opers and the unusual aspects of theplan Eventually they convinced abank to finance the project afterdownplaying its unique features

Role of Participation While theoverall plan came solely from the de-velopers they built in numerous op-portunities for residents to partici-pate in the design of open spaces andongoing management of the commu-nity One of the main ways residentshave been involved is through workparties Much of the communallandscape and buildings were con-structed through this community-built process Funds were set aside bythe Homeowners Association to allowresidents to design and build land-scape areas and buildings such as theCommunity Center and Pool For ex-ample each group of eight home-owners living around a common areareceived about $600 from the Home-owners Association to landscape thecommon areas as they wished Thisforced residents to work togetherand get to know each other almostimmediately after moving in

An important benefit of resi-dent participation is creating a senseof symbolic ownership Surveys haveshown that this participation has ledto a stronger sense of attachment tothe neighborhood and greater satis-faction (Lenz 1990)

Design and Planning ConceptsVillage Homes combines older de-sign and planning principles withnewer more innovative ideas Manyof its basic concepts as the develop-

ers admit are drawn directly fromearlier greenbelt communities Theidea of a residential area organizedaround open space (as compared tothe street) is a long-standing andpopular planning concept It alsogoes against most new urbanist think-ing that maintains the street as thecentral focus of public space (Brill2002 Calthorpe et al 2000 Duanyet al 2000) (Figure 5)

The physical planning prin-ciples grow directly from the largermission of the community The NewHomeowners Guide published by theVillage Homeowners Association(1995) summarizes the major plan-ning concepts and spells out the so-cial and environmental goals of the plan

A number of design features helpVillage Homes residents live in anenergy-efficient and aestheticallypleasing community All streets areoriented east-west and all lots areoriented north-south The orienta-tion helps the houses with passivesolar designs and makes full use ofthe sunrsquos energy Street widths areall narrow with curving cul-de-sacsless than 25 feet wide minimizingthe amount of pavement exposedto the sun in the long hot sum-mers The curving lines of theroads also give them the look of vil-

lage lanes and the few cars thatventure into the cul-de-sacs usuallytravel slowly6 The common areasalso contain Village Homesrsquo inno-vative natural drainage system anetwork of creek beds swales andpond areas that allow rainwater to be absorbed into the groundrather than carried away throughstorm drains Besides helping tostore moisture in the soil this sys-tem provides a visually interestingbackdrop for landscape design(Village Homeowners Association1995 p 1)

Site Planning The Corbettsidentify six elements as the main site planning innovations of VillageHomes (Corbett and Corbett 1983pp 27ndash47) They include commu-nity energy conservation and use ofsolar energy walking and bicycling aldquodesign closer to naturerdquo neigh-borhood agriculture and naturaldrainage (Figure 6)

Open Space Several types of openspace are provided in Village Homesincluding private gardens commonareas agricultural lands turf areasfor sports and landscaped areas (seeTable 2) These spaces are describedin the official publications of VillageHomes as ldquohousehold commonsrdquoldquogreenbelt commonsrdquo and ldquoagricul-


Figure 5 Village Homes house solar design Courtesy of Mike Corbett

Figure 6 Panoramic of central open space Photograph by Tom Lamb

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 28

tural landsrdquo (Village Homeowners As-sociation 1995 p 11) Residents holdcommon interest in all three types ofland Common lands are specified bythe Homeowners Board to be usedfor three purposesmdashenjoyment flow-ers and food and profit such as thealmond orchard of 300 trees thatgenerates income for the homeown-ers association

These traffic-protected open ar-eas form safe play areas for children(Francis 1998) Residents have builtplay areas for their children in someof these open spaces and modifiedthem as the kids grew older Theyhave also experienced some problemswith nonresidents using the openspaces and picking fruit (Figure 7)

Vegetation and Edible LandscapeMuch of the plant material in VillageHomes is either edible or native Vil-lage Homes residents can pick fruitright outside their houses in mostcommon areas The edible landscapeincludes oranges almonds apricotspears grapes persimmons peachescherries and plums Community gar-dens located on the west side of theneighborhood provide organic pro-duce some of which is sold to localrestaurants and markets Annual har-vest festivals bring residents togetherThis edible landscape has created adiverse and somewhat overgrowncharacter to the neighborhood Somenonresidents have commented thatthe overall landscape is ldquoan eyesorerdquoand needs a great amount of mainte-nance On the other hand residents

get pleasure in seeing the seasonalcycles of nature expressed in the Vil-lagersquos vegetation and open spaces(Figure 8)

Circulation Pedestrian and bi-cycle paths were laid out before thestreets and given greater emphasis inthe overall plan This makes it easierto walk or bike from one part of thecommunity to another than to driveGreatest travel time within the neigh-

borhood is five minutes typicallywithout ever crossing a road TheCommunity center with swimmingpool day care center the PlumshireInn restaurant and a dance studioare no more than a five-minute walkfrom any house No other servicesare provided in the community Gro-cery stores and other services are a short bicycle ride away althoughmost residents use cars to shop in

Francis 29

Table 2 Typology of Open Spaces foundin Village Houses

bull Streets

bull Central Green

bull Vineyards

bull Orchards

bull Common areas

bull Playgrounds

bull Drainage swales

bull Community Gardens

bull Bicycle and pedestrian paths

bull Private courtyards

Figure 7 Community designed built and common area Photograph by Tom Lamb

Figure 8 Much of Village Homes is an agricultural landscape owned by residentsPhotograph by Tom Lamb

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 29

neighborhood centers or in down-town Davis Large purchases gener-ally take place in Woodland tenmiles to the north or in Sacramentofifteen miles east of Davis (Figure 9)

Open Channel Drainage Thedrainage system creates a network ofsmall creek-like channels that holdrainwater and allow runoff to perco-late back into the water table theCity of Davisrsquo source of drinking wa-ter During the dry summers theybecome landscaped play areas The system accomplishes multiplegoals This creates a low-technologydrainage system saves infrastructurecosts and creates pleasant natural ar-eas with visual and play value (Boothand Leavitt 1999 Girling and Help-hand 1994) As a result conventionalstorm sewers were not required sav-ing nearly $200000 in developmentcosts (Corbett and Corbett 2000)Open channel drainage instead ofcatch basins and pipes undergroundreportedly saved enough money topay for most landscape improve-ments in the development includingwalkways gardens and other land-scape amenities (Figure 10)

Open channel drainage notonly recharges the water table and re-duces infrastructure costs for utilitiesbut also creates a diverse landscapewell suited for naturalistic play (Hart1978 Moore 1993) These principleshave been adopted and have begunto be widely implemented (see forexample Ferguson 1998 Richman ampAssociates 1997) Several Davis devel-opments have adopted open channeldrainage in the design of a numberof residential and commercial proj-ects including the Aspen and Wil-lowcreek developments

Energy Use and Conservation Nat-ural heating and cooling is accom-plished through both passive and ac-tive systems While residents were notrequired to have active solar water-heating systems the design reviewcommittee strongly encouragedthem and Mike Corbett put them onall the homes he built Almost everyresident complied Houses are ori-ented northsouth accommodatingthe use of solar panels The designalso allows south-facing windows tobe shaded in the summer by over-hangs and deciduous vegetation

Houses incorporate passive heatingand cooling are well insulated andincorporate thermal mass Solar hotwater systems are required and typi-cally meet up to one hundred per-cent of a homersquos hot water needs inthe summer and above fifty percentin the winter Street trees shade roadsand reduce ambient air temperaturesby as much as ten degrees a signifi-cant amount on hot summer days

A well-publicized aspect of Vil-lage Homes is its reported lower useof energy Lenz (1990) found one-third less household energy use thanin other parts of Davis This is a resultof a combination of its passive solarhouse designs south-facing site ori-entation and south and west sideshading A dissertation at UC Davisin 1978 found that Village Homesresidents consume fifty percent lessenergy than other residents in Davis(Hamrin 1978)

Water Conservation The neigh-borhood is designed to conserve wa-ter through drought-tolerant land-scaping and reduced use of turfareas It employs a ldquohydrozoningrdquoconcept where irrigation is applied

most heavily to areas of human use(Thayer and Richman 1984) For ex-ample larger commons have lawnfor soccer practice games and infor-mal gatherings while areas alongpaths use native or edible vegetationThis has proved to be quite effective(Corbett and Corbett 2000)

Management An office managerhired by the Homeowners Associa-tion performs daily management Allresidents are dues paying membersof the Village Homeowners Associa-tion (VHA) The Homeowners Asso-ciation Board and its various commit-tees (which include both a DesignReview Board and an AgriculturalBoard) is a strong body that ensureslocal control and participation TheBoard is involved in everything fromresolving disputes among neighborsto controlling use of pesticides to re-viewing additions and remodeling ofexisting structures Committees andregulations are numerous For ex-ample three pages of guidelines gov-ern the community gardens and gar-den coordinators are appointed tooversee different areas

When residents move in theyreceive a Welcome to Village Homesbrochure (Village Homeowners Asso-ciation 1995) More than a welcomewagon this document lays out the


Figure 9 Bikepaths in use Photograph by Tom Lamb

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 30

history and philosophy of the neigh-borhood and its unique features andrules It provides instructions for pay-ment of homeownersrsquo dues notingthat a reduction in fees is availablefor residents who maintain their por-tion of the common area The Boardof Directors makes semiannual ldquoweedwalksrdquo to ensure that residents dotheir jobs The nonprofit Board alsois the sole stockholder of Plumshire

Inc a for-profit corporation set up toplan and manage nonagriculturalprofit-making ventures of the Associ-ation This includes the Plumshirebuildings with offices some apart-ments and a small and popularrestaurant the Plumshire Inn

Community Economics The Cor-bettrsquos original vision was to developas much as possible an economicallyself-sufficient community Money-making ventures were envisionedthrough different types of agricul-ture office developments and aninn Only some of this has been real-ized Office space owned by theHomeowners Association is rentedas is the Community Center withrates ranging from $25 an hour forresidents to $250 a day for nonresi-dents The Community Center is verypopular for weddings and family re-unions and is often booked Board-sponsored events as well as freeclasses parties and meetings are ex-empt from fees

Most residents are employed by the University of California or inSacramento the state capital Thereare a few employment opportunitiesin the village Those that exist are inthe Plumshire office complex at therestaurant in the day care center orwith the Homeowners AssociationSome residents have used the com-munity gardens to grow and sell pro-duce

Food Production Residents arethe primary beneficiaries of theneighborhoodrsquos edible landscapeLenz (1990) found that residentsproduce about twenty five percent oftheir household fruit and vegetableconsumption Some residents alsoproduce their own nuts honey andgrain The community gardens areproductive and add to the agricul-tural character of the neighborhoodThere are almond orchards that areharvested in the early autumn Thecommunity is invited to participate inthis work party and if they do theyhave the opportunity to buy the al-monds at a fifty percent discountRemaining almonds are sold to otherresidents and any excess is sold tocommercial almond processors (Fig-ure 11)

Community Organizations andSpecial Events A number of specialevents and special interest groups areactive in Village Homes These in-clude a ldquoPerformance Circlerdquo ofacoustical musicians a ldquoSecret Gar-den Tourrdquo Yoga and Tai Chi classesan Easter Egg Hunt and a regularPotluck Brunch Noteworthy is the

Francis 31

Figure 10 Open channel drainage Photograph by Mark Francis

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 31

annual Overhill-Westernesse Back-to-School Party Residents of theOverhill-Westernesse common areasbuilt a neighborhood play area intheir commons and hold a back-to-school party to share it with the restof the community

Safety and Traffic Calming Theuse of narrow and cul-de-sac streetsin Village Homes appear to result intraffic-calming benefits The need forslow streets to encourage child playand residential satisfaction has beenwell documented (Southworth andBen-Joseph 1997) The long and nar-row streets in Village Homes accom-plish this but lead to other problemssuch as lack of visitor parking (Fig-ure 12)

Role of Landscape Architect(s)Village Homes is the result of a

strong vision on the part of the de-signers Its success is also due to thedesignersrsquo ability to implement theirvision over time In many ways theproject has been a long-term labor oflove for the Corbetts They put fortha vision and fought for it againstgreat odds for more than a decadeThey have also lived in the commu-nity since its inception investedcountless hours into the manage-ment and publicizing of the commu-nity and invested in neighborhoodbusinesses Mike Corbett runs hisplanning firm from the communityand has built and operates PlumshireInn a small and excellent restaurantopened in 1999

Evaluation of Successes and LimitationsThe literature on Village

Homes is almost unanimous in itspraise of the community Yet much ofthis literature is anecdotal or basedprimarily on qualitative assessmentsThe few quantitative studies of VillageHomes tend to support the commu-nityrsquos successes To date no longitu-dinal research has been done on theproject which limits understandingthe projectrsquos long-term benefits7

The most systematic and com-

prehensive evaluation of VillageHomes was done as a postoccupancyevaluation (POE) by Thomas Lenz aspart of his masterrsquos degree in socialand urban geography from the Tech-nical University of Munich (Lenz1990) According to Lenz his re-search goals were to find out how Vil-lage Homes ldquofunctioned as a neigh-borhood whether the design goals asstated by the developers were metand whether residents were satisfiedwith their neighborhoodrdquo The data


Figure 11 Much of the public and private landscape is edible Photograph by Tom Lamb

Figure 12 Streets were designed to be narrow and heavily shaded with no on streetparking provided Photograph by Mark Francis

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 32

were collected between October1988 and March 1989 and involvedcomparison of Village Homes to acontrol neighborhood in Davis8 Healso compared factors such as recy-cling behavior car and bicycle tripsand household energy use betweenthe two neighborhoods His findingsare particularly useful in understand-ing the successes and limitations ofVillage Homes as ldquoa better place toliverdquo

In general Lenz found thatldquoresidents of Village Homes are moresatisfied with their houses and muchmore satisfied with their neighbor-hood than their counterparts in the

conventional neighborhoodrdquo (1990)Major complaints from Village Homesresidents had to do with problemswith solar equipment quality ofbuilding materials and lack of light-ing in the common areas Other con-cerns included the lack of parkinggarages and storage Most appreci-ated was the unique social life of theneighborhood including its commu-nal open spaces appropriateness forchildren and opportunity for socialcontacts Lenz found that residentsof Village Homes socialized moreand knew their neighbors better thanresidents in the traditional neighbor-hood (see Table 3)

Lenzrsquos study raises the questionof whether increased social contactsare a result of the physical design ofthe community or the unique kindsof people who choose to live thereLenz found that Village Homes wascomprised of a greater number ofyoung families and what he calledldquospecial interest groupsrdquo such as stu-dents and senior citizens He alsofound that the people who ratedtheir social lives the highest tendedto be Food Co-op members and com-munity gardeners while people whowere not part of these groups social-ized recycled and gardened less andrated the neighborhood lower on

Francis 33

Table 3 Comparison of Village Homes and Conventional Neighborhood Source Lenz 1990

Village Homes Control Neighborhood

DemographicsNumber of households 242 54Cars per household 18 21Bikes per household 35 36Family households 719 933Mean household income $51600 $65300Mean house square footage 1500 1820Percentage of homeowners 865 933

Evaluation of Houses (0 = completely dissatisfied 10 = completely satisfied)Average of all evaluated items 73 68Overall design evaluation by respondents 79 70

Evaluation of NeighborhoodsAverage of all evaluated items 82 77Overall design evaluation by respondents 86 71

Evaluation of Friends and SocializingNumber of best friends within neighborhood 4 4Number of friends 16 8Number of persons known 42 17Time spent with friends from within the neighborhood (hours per week) 35 9Time spent with friends from outside the neighborhood (hours per week) 87 37

AgricultureAverage number of fruit and vegetables grown 10 8Average contribution to totalannual consumption 24 18

TransportationAverage annual miles per car 11300 13400Average miles per household 210 270Average gas mileage of vehicles 27 mpg 235 mpgGasoline consumption per car per year 422 gallons 577 gallonsGasoline consumption per household per year 753 gallons 1171 gallons

Energy ConsumptionTotal yearly energy consumption per household (kWh) 44900 67700

Recycling (0 = do not recycle 10 = always recycle)Glass 75 64Paper 43 17Organic Waste 34 20

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 33

most dimensions Lenz concludesthat it is a combination of the uniquevalues of the residents and the provi-sion of places that bring people to-gether that make the communitymore social9

UC Davis landscape architec-ture professor Patsy Owens and herstudents conducted a follow-up post-occupancy evaluation (POE) a fewyears later (Owens 1993)10 Theyfound similar high levels of satisfac-tion among residents The threehighest ranked design elements werethe common areas the bicycle andpedestrian paths and the attractive-ness of the community (Owens 1993p 29) Close behind were auto circu-lation closeness of houses privacysolar design and open channeldrainage (all above eighty percentsatisfaction) (Owens 1993 p 29)Lowest ranked was the satisfactionwith parking which may be due tothe rise in teenagers bringing a thirdcar into the household When askedhow much longer residents plannedto live in Village Homes half an-swered ldquoforeverrdquo This mirrors thestrong sense of attachment to placefelt by residents

Even studies by the City of Davisnow confirm its success ldquoThe overallimpression of the neighborhood ishow the homes and streets recedeinto the lush landscape and green-belts a non-manicured landscapeconsisting of many edible plants anddominated by common areasrdquo ex-plained then Community Develop-ment Director Jeff Loux and Associ-ate Planner Robert Wolcott (Louxand Wolcott 1994)

Maintenance and ManagementA key feature of Village Homes is theunique management system that in-volves residents in decision-makingThe Corbettsrsquo believed that a parti-cipatory management organizationwas needed for the community to be successful (2000) They chose ahomeowners association model as itprovided the greatest degree of localcontrol and participation Over theyears they may have regretted this to some degree as the homeownerboard has gone against some of theirproposals For example it took sev-eral years of discussion before theBoard agreed to develop the small

restaurant complex completed in1999 Yet the Corbetts continue to in-clude participation as one of their es-sential ingredients in making sustain-able communities (Corbett andCorbett 2000)

SocialCommunity Factors Whatis unique about Village Homes is how it works as a social place Thephysical form of the neighborhoodhas created a cohesive and dynamiccommunity life For example Lenz(1990) found that people living inVillage Homes had twice as manyfriends and three times as many social contacts as people living inother parts of Davis

Another good indicator of acommunity is how it works for chil-dren In my interviews with Judy Cor-bett she emphasized this as one ofthe most successful aspects of thecommunity ldquoIt is a great place toraise kids It offers children a sense offreedom and security This is one ofthe communityrsquos greatest successesrdquo(personal communication 2000)

In the early 1980s we did a se-ries of observations and interviews toassess childrenrsquos use of open space inVillage Homes (Francis 1985 1988)We found in general that it providedan accessible and rich landscape thatoffered kids numerous opportunitiesfor naturalistic play One of the find-ings was somewhat surprising andcounter to one of the core principlesof Village Homes The street was asheavily used and valued a part of thechildhood landscape as the commonareas What is unique about VillageHomes from a childrsquos perspective isthe diversity of places provided fromstreets to play areas to natural areasand the almost seamless access pro-vided to these places (Figure 13)

Critical Reviews Village Homeshas been widely discussed and re-viewed in both the professional andpopular press Publications as diverseas Landscape Architecture The ChristianScience Monitor Time and Newsweekhave featured the community in ar-ticles on sustainable developmentVillage Homes is well known abroaddue to numerous documentaries

aired on European and Asian televi-sion It has also received several na-tional design awards

Another form of peer review ispublished reports by its residents onthe experience of living in VillageHomes Some of the case studiespublished on Village Homes illus-trate its unique social life For ex-ample Paul Tarzi a resident of Vil-lage Homes since 1979 commentsldquothe open spaces and play areas arewell used and provide casual meet-ing opportunities Yoursquore just moreaccessible to your neighborsrdquo Hisneighborhood group has had weeklypotlucks for years ldquoItrsquos somethingthat people look forward tordquo he saysldquoEveryone has an orange flag theyput out that day if they intend tocomerdquo Tarzi goes on to state ldquoAcommunity is more than a physicallocation Itrsquos a feeling of kinship Liv-ing at Village Homes has enhancedour lives in many ways I guess I couldsay Irsquom looking forward to growingold hererdquo (Browning and Hamilton1993 p 33)

In summer 2000 a 25th anniver-sary party was held for Village Homesand was attended by 350 people in-cluding some ldquoalumnirdquo who hadmoved away and come back to cele-brate There were speeches musicand a slide show of the early days ofthe Village For the first time thecommunity honored the Corbetts sfor their vision in founding VillageHomes with a bronze plaque to bemounted on a large rock near thecommunity center (Davis Enterprise2000

Criticism Most of the publicitysurrounding Village Homes haspointed to its successes as a develop-ment and praised its importance forother communities Little of what hasbeen written has been sharply criti-cal Village Homes does raise somefundamental issues surrounding thecreation of community through phys-ical design

The National Association ofHome Builders (NAB) has critiquedthe unrealized aspects of the VillageHomes plan They state ldquonot all ofthe original design premises and ex-pectations of Village Homes havebeen realized The Davis Departmentof Health rejected a plan to recycle


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34

gray water for irrigating orchards Acooperative store idea fell by the way-side as did a central cooperative ele-mentary school And when federaltax credits for alternative powersources were terminated by the Rea-gan Administration in the 1980scontinued solar development on theVillage Homes model experienced amajor setbackrdquo (National Associationof Homebuilders 2000)

The following criticisms11 havebeen offered of Village Homes andits approach to community design

Shared Values or Design Determin-ism Is the success of Village Homesits unique community design or thekind of people who have chosen tolive there Several observers of Vil-lage Homes have raised this questionFor example landscape architectEllen Jouret-Epstein (2000) asks ina letter to the editor to Landscape Ar-chitecture ldquoIs Village Homes a sharingcommunity because of its indisput-ably great features Or because it hasattracted and concentrated a popu-lation with certain shared valuesrdquoClearly some residents decide to livethere due to its physical and symbolicreflections of their environmentaland social values In the early daysmany residents chose to settle there

due to its unique ideology and thepioneering spirit of living in a newexperimental solar communitySince then there has been a largeturnover of residents and today onlyabout 25 percent of the early resi-dents remain a figure that is stillmuch higher than it is for most com-munities Many people now chooseto live there due to its strong prop-erty values and high quality of livingThis reportedly creates some conflictbetween old and new residents whichsometimes need to be mediated bythe Homeowners Association (Jouret-Epstein 2000 p 11)

Conflict with New Urbanist Prin-ciples Village Homes goes againstmany of the principles currentlypopular in new urbanist and smartgrowth planning (Fulton 1996Duany et al 2000 Calthorpe et al2000) For example the develop-ment is open space-oriented as op-posed to more formal geometries ofcommunity design (Francis 1995)Clare Cooper Marcus provides a criti-cal review of Village Homesrsquo transfor-mation from an early ldquohippierdquo com-

munity to now one of the most ldquodesir-ablerdquo places to live in Davis (CooperMarcus 2000) Comparing VillageHomes to new urbanist planning shestates ldquoThe design of this highly suc-cessful community breaks many ofthe rules popularized by the propo-nents of New Urbanism First of all iteschews the grid and provides accessto houses via long narrow cul-de-sacsmdashthose lsquolollipopsrsquo of 1950s sub-urbia much hated by proponents ofNew Urbanism The green-shadednarrow dead-end streets save moneyon infrastructure use less land re-duce urban runoff keep the neigh-borhood cooler in summer andcreate a quiet and safe public areawhere neighbors meet and childrenplayrdquo (Cooper Marcus 2000 p 128)

Hierarchy of Open Space CooperMarcus goes on to critique the openspace design of Village Homes andcompare it to the more formalstreet-oriented layouts proposed bynew urbanists She finds based onobservations that the shared pedes-trian commons or green spaces pro-vided between houses work well forchildrenrsquos play natural areas andcommunal events ldquoThis attractiveenvironmentmdashthough accessible to outsiders riding or walkingthroughmdashis definitely not a publicparkrdquo She suggests that these com-mon areas provide ldquoa green heartrdquo tothe neighborhood Cooper Marcusgoes on to suggest that ldquobetween thedesignations of lsquoprivate yardrsquo andlsquopublic parkrsquo lies a critical category ofoutdoor space that might be calledcommunal or sharedrdquo (Cooper Mar-cus 2000 p 128)

What would you do differentlySome of the criticism of VillageHomes comes from the developersthemselves Mike Corbett suggeststhat the development could be threetimes denser while providing thesame amount of green space JudyCorbett observes that the communitymay be too big with some 800 resi-dents She states ldquoWe would havehad a much stronger sense of com-munity if there were about 500 of usrdquo(Owens 1993 p 20) The Corbettsdisagree between themselves regard-ing the size of the central green areanear the Community Center JudyCorbett says ldquoI tend to think it would

Francis 35

Figure 13 The open drainage areas provide numerous opportunities for childrenrsquos playPhotograph by Mark Francis

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35

be better smaller though Mikethinks it should stay that size Itrsquosgood for soccer practices and morespread-out activities and it is used onweekends Itrsquos just too big for thekind of intimacy that other openspaces seem to have fosteredrdquo(Owens 1993 p 20)

Where is the front door The siteplan which emphasizes the backyardcommon areas over the street led to a dilemma in deciding where toput the front door With the houseturned away from the street the frontdoor was deliberately not placed onthe street side With the commonarea being the major focus the frontdoor could go here but there wereconcerns about visitors being able tofind it The Corbetts were ambivalentabout this and ultimately settled onputting the door on the side of thehouse They admit that the frontdoor ldquois often impossible to findrdquo(personal interview 2000)

Lack of Open Space Use Duringinformal observations over a periodof several years and more systematicobservations done for this case studyI was struck by how underused someof the landscape of Village Homes is (Francis 1985 1988) While usepicked up in evenings and weekendsweekdays tended to find few people

using the common landscape Thelow use may be partially due to theharsh summers in Davis where it isnot comfortable to be outdoors es-pecially during the day An addedfactor may be the busy lives of its resi-dents whose lives are as highly struc-tured and over-programmed as thoseof their suburban counterparts inother developments This is also trueof Village Homesrsquo children whoselives are filled up with school sportsmusic lessons computers and TV(Figure 14)

Whose Fruit One limitationwith the design of Village Homes isthe blurred boundary between pub-lic and private realms While this isresponsible for much of its distinctcharacter with no fences betweenprivate yards and more public com-mon areas it has created some prob-lems For example it is unclear towhom the bountiful fruit in the com-mon areas belongs Is it the privateresidents The collection of housesaround it The entire communityThe public Visitors and even someresidents are often confused by thisCommon fruit trees are especially

hard to identify since they are gener-ally near household common areas

While the landscape is ambigu-ous about this the Homeowners As-sociation rules are not They specifyldquoonly residents of Village Homes areallowed to pick produce from thecommon areas Yoursquore encouraged tointroduce yourself and anyone yousee picking if she or he is a residentand you should politely explain tononresidents that Village Homes isprivate propertyrdquo Even residents are discouraged from picking fruit in other peoplersquos common areasldquoPlease do not pick fruit from house-hold commons unless you see a signinviting you to pick and alwayshonor signs requesting you not topickrdquo (Village Homeowners Associa-tion 1995 p 13) (Figure 15)

Vegetation and Pest ManagementWith plentiful and diverse vegetationcomes a diversity of insects In VillageHomes this includes spiders (includ-ing black widows) slugs and antsResidents report having these inlarge quantities and some attribute itto the profusion of vegetation andthe lack of chemical pest controlSome have called for more inte-grated pest management (IPM) edu-cation among gardeners and resi-dents As one Village Homes residentsums it up ldquoIrsquom all for integrating na-ture into my home but this is ridicu-lousrdquo

Security Village Homes hasproved to be a safe neighborhoodcomparable to other neighborhoodsin Davis Yet it is not without its crit-ics A Davis police officer with the


Figure 15 Who owns the fruit andvegetables has been a point of conflict inthe community as seen in this ldquoPrivateOrchardrdquo Sign Photograph by TomLamb

Figure 14 While well designed some open spaces in Village Homes are not heavily usedPhotograph by Tom Lamb

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36

Crime Prevention Unit commentedin a 1993 interview ldquoIf Village Homeswere to be built today it would notmeet the current Davis SecurityCode so many changes would needto be made In general the streetsare too narrow for emergency ve-hicles to turn around house num-bers are not easily visible from thestreet and lighting is poor through-out the site Because the shrubbery s not kept pruned back from wallsthere are too many places for prowl-ers to hiderdquo (Owens 1993 p 23)

These are several of the samecriticisms that almost prevented Vil-lage Homes from being built Evenwith this criticism it is one of thesafer areas in Davis Police depart-ment records show that VillageHomes crime rates are ninety per-cent below the rest of Davis (Corbettand Corbett 1983 p 9)

Role as a Symbolic CommunityThe farm-like landscape serves as apowerful symbol for the communityWithout the vineyards orchards andcommunity gardens Village Homeswould appear much more like a con-ventional development It demon-strates that there is a value to zoningsmall scale agricultural uses withinexisting cities rather than the cur-rent thinking that farms must existapart from where people live

Aesthetics Village Homes has itsown unique look that has been char-acterized as ldquoecological aestheticsrdquo(Thayer 1994) The landscape clearlyreflects the ecological practices thatguide its creation and managementWhile some value the ldquorural feelingrdquoof the development not all appreci-ate its often wild and unkempt char-acter The developers concede thatthe aesthetic of Village Homes ldquois notfor everyonerdquo (personal communica-tion 2000) The regular ldquoweed pa-trolsrdquo of the Homeowners Board isevidence of the continuing struggleto find a healthy balance betweenwildness and order12

Environmental Impacts Much ofthe planning and site design was in-tended to be sustainablemdashto reduceenergy use conserve water reduceautomobile use and create food sys-tems Clearly this has occurred withVillage Homes Most new urbanistplanning has similar environmental

goals Yet it is questionable if thesetypes of development yield the sameenvironmental benefits as VillageHomes

In a study at the University ofOregon funded by the National Ur-ban and Community Forestry Advi-sory Council researchers comparedthe effects of three types of neighbor-hood development on air water andurban forest quality (Girling et al2000) They did extensive modelingof a traditional suburban develop-ment a typical gridded new urbanistdevelopment and an open space-oriented development modeledlargely after Village Homes The re-searchers found that the traditionaland new urbanist developments hadvery similar environmental impactsincluding amount of impervious sur-face runoff and energy use The Vil-lage Homes style development wasthe only one that produced signifi-cant improvements in air water andforest quality This study points outthe need for more comparative stud-ies that look across cases

Replication The most commonand troubling criticism of the projectis that it has not been replicatedEven the developers acknowledgeldquothere is nothing like it anywhererdquo(personal communication 2000)Village Homes has even spawned de-velopers among its residents whohave chosen not to replicate its suc-cesses When asked why the responseis that ldquoit would be too riskyrdquo JohnWhitcombe one of Davisrsquo leadingresidential developers is not sur-prised no one has built a project asrevolutionary as Village Homes Hesuggests that ldquothe main reason therearenrsquot more Village Homes is therersquosonly one Mike Corbettrdquo (Fitch 1999)(Figure 16)

Former City of Davis plannerDoris Michael suggests that it is dueto the fact that ldquoit is too expensiverdquo(Owens 1993 p 17) She attributesthe lack of replication to ldquonot allpeople feeling comfortable living soclose to othersrdquo Fears of expenseand density are common fears of de-velopers Yet the reality of develop-ment has proved that these are moremyth than fact

Planners Loux and Wolcott(1994) have observed ldquoMany citizens

Francis 37

Figure 16 Innovations such as open channel drainage have been used in later Davisprojects such as the design of this ldquoplay beachrdquo in the Aspen development Design byCoDesign photograph by Mark Francis

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37

throughout the city look with prideto Village Homes and question whyno similar model has been built inthe past 20 yearsrdquo The two plannerssuggest that the reasons for this areincreases in land prices and changesin home styles and tastes City stan-dards in Davis and elsewhere remaina substantial barrier for a developerwanting to build a similar project

Mike Corbett offers an assess-ment of why the project has not beenreproduced ldquoThe problem is notthat the public does not want it Theycome here and see what we havedone and say lsquoWhy isnrsquot everybodydoing thisrsquo But developers are soclosed-minded They continue tobuild thousands of places where youcanrsquot get around without a carrdquo (Jack-son 1999 p 79)

Even replicating the project inDavis has been difficult Judy Corbettpoints out ldquothe present City Councildoes not hesitate to brag to othercountries about how wonderful theirVillage Homes is but they do notseem to do much to enable anythinglike it to be built here againrdquo (Owens1993 p 19) Some of the ideas suchas open channel drainage and natu-ral landscape have been used in laterdevelopments in Davis but no onehas attempted to replicate the com-

munity in whole For now it is a one-of-a-kind project13

Significance and Uniqueness ofProject Why does Village Homeswork Factors commonly cited in theliterature include that people like liv-ing there they perceive the commu-nity as safe it is seen as a good placeto raise children and that the de-signers and developers actually livethere14 Some point out that thehouses have a higher resale valuethat makes them a good investmentIt also encourages and fosters theparticipation of its residents Alsomentioned is that it exists in a townthat is socially and environmentallyaware and that it provides a neededalternative to suburban living Per-haps most importantly VillageHomes has meaning for residentswho have a strong attachment to it asa place (Figure 17)

Limitations and Problems With itsmany successes and pioneering de-sign and planning features VillageHomes has not been without its prob-lems Many of these are minor designflaws yet several raise significant is-sues for designing similar sustainablecommunities One limitation is thatmany residents living in VillageHomes often have strong environ-mental and social values although

not everyone shares the same politi-cal views Another problem is that in-adequate storage space has createdvisual clutter Judy Corbett for ex-ample has commented ldquoI wouldhave no carports Those seem to havejust gotten messy and people com-plain about lack of storage Garageswould work much betterrdquo (Owens1993 p 20) The developers andmost observers agree that the samesuccess could have been achievedwith a higher density

Despite great efforts on thepart of developers to provide afford-able housing opportunities social di-versity has been limited in VillageHomes As home values have esca-lated so too has the number of pro-fessional residents While rentalapartments the co-op house andsmall houses create a sense of diver-sity social diversity is limited in thecommunity as it is in the larger cityof Davis As the community has ma-tured it has also been difficult to sus-tain the level of involvement of theearly days For example the VillageHomeowners Association (VHA) inits newsletter (March 1999) com-plained about the shortage of votesto conduct Board elections

Generalizable Features andLessons Most if not all of the designand planning principles discussedearlier are directly applicable toother projects Especially transfer-able is the projectrsquos emphasis onparticipation open channel drain-age the diversity of open space typesshared communal space the child-oriented landscape and hydrozon-ing Also generalizable is the mixed-use Village Center concept andplacing emphasis on pedestrians andbikes first and cars second

There are some comparable de-velopments to Village Homes worthnoting Perhaps the closest philo-sophically is The Woodlands inTexas also designed in the early1970s (WMRT 1974) Most similar toVillage Homes is the more recentPrairie Crossing a 667-acre develop-ment in Grayslake Illinois north ofChicago Prairie Crossing puts simi-lar emphasis on agriculture and openspace with 150 acres set aside forfarmland among its 317 home sitesIt also uses a natural drainage system


Figure 17 Community participation such as used in the design and construction of thecommunity pool is one reason for the success of the community Photograph by TomLamb

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38

Other recent examples that sharesimilarities to Village Homes are Cof-fee Creek in Indiana (being designedby architect William McDonough)Haymount in Virginia and Civanoin Arizona One also cannot helpcomparing Village Homes to twoother well-known planned communi-ties mdash Sea Ranch also in Californiaand Seaside in Florida15 While theseprojects differ in that they are prima-rily second home communities theydo share Village Homesrsquo ingenuityand design experimentation

Future Issues and Plans If VillageHomes were being designed todaysome thirty years later how should itbe different Given its great successone could argue that it should be de-signed exactly the same as there areso many things that work well aboutthis place Yet there have been manyadvances in the basic design prin-ciples pioneered in this project Forexample we know more about howto design natural drainage systemsand make them larger more visibleparts of communities (Richman ampAssociates 1997)

When asked what she would dodifferently Judy Corbett commentedldquobuild the commercial area firstrather than wait until the endrdquo (per-sonal communication 2000) She ob-serves that NIMBYism (not in myback yard) does set in and residentsbecome resistant to change and newideas Just as the city of Davis was abarrier to implementing the Cor-bettsrsquo ideas residents were reluctantto approve their plans for comple-tion of the Village Center (Figure18)

ConclusionsImplicationsThe Corbetts summarize what

they consider to be the importanceof their labor of love in this way ldquoWedo not view Village Homes as anideal We see it as a practical step inthe right direction Just as the housesand the quality of life within VillageHomes have been improved as wehave gained experience we hopethat future developments will beimproved to become largely self-sufficient neighborhoods Most ofthe necessary techniques equipmentand knowledge are now available todo this The challenge is to combine

these many simple practical and eco-nomical steps so they work togetherrdquo(Corbett and Corbett 1983 p 9)

The ideas and principles em-bodied in Village Homes can be uti-lized in many other situations It al-ready has influenced many otherdesigners and developers VillageHomes has also inspired develop-ment of important theory and builtpractices of sustainable communitydesign

With the current interest in for-mal approaches to community de-sign as evidenced by new urbanistsVillage Homes provides an alterna-tive and refreshing model of neigh-borhood design Most importantly itdemonstrates an approach to sustain-able community design quite differ-ent than most current models Per-haps the most important differenceis the projectrsquos heavy emphasis onopen space as the organizing frame-work for the community Unlike newurbanist proposals that begin withformal layouts of gridded streets andprecise formulas for street designand provision of public space VillageHomes emphasizes more informaland naturalistic open space to fostercommunity participation and senseof place It also shows how important

the designed and natural landscapeis to creating a strong communityidentify and resident satisfaction

Writing in his award-winning ar-ticle in 1977 that first introduced Vil-lage Homes to design professionalsThayer suggested that it might not beappropriate to make Village Homes amodel for all community design ldquoItmay be unwise to suggest that VillageHomes is a generalizable case studyA large percentage of homeownerslive there as an experimentrdquo He goeson to conclude ldquoVillage Homes willmake a significant contribution toprogress in community designwhether it stabilizes as a neighbor-hood and true product of environ-mental awareness or serves as a con-tinually evolving laboratory forconservation and community in envi-ronmental design As BuckministerFuller might say ldquoVillage Homes isperhaps less a noun and more averbrdquo It is clear that the experimen-tal period of the project is now pastand it has become a more establishedand even institutionalized model ofcommunity design Village Homestoday serves as a living model of sus-tainable community design and anongoing laboratory for research andreplication

Francis 39

Figure 18 Many home gardens are designed as sustainable landscapes emphasizingnative plants water conservation and habitat Photograph by Tom Lamb

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39

AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank Frederick Steiner andSusan Everett who first encouraged me to dothis study and to the Landscape ArchitectureFoundation who commissioned this work Thepreparation of this case study was funded by aJJR Research Grant the Landscape Architec-ture Foundation and the University of Califor-nia Agricultural Experiment Station I wouldalso like to thank the designers and developersof Village Homes Judy and Mike Corbettwhose openness self-criticism and enthusiasmaided preparation of this case study I wouldalso like to acknowledge Rob Thayer my col-league at UC Davis and longtime VillageHomes resident for his important researchand insight over the years regarding VillageHomes and its significance for landscape ar-chitecture My students at UC Davis have alsobeen important observers of Village Homesand have greatly informed my own views ofthe place Mary Bedard Judy Corbett SusanEverett Randall Fleming and Rob Thayer pro-vided useful comments on an earlier draft ofthis article I also thank Tom Lamb for his per-mission to reproduce his original photos com-missioned by LAF for this study

Notes1 Innovations that have made Davis recog-nized as an ldquoecologicalrdquo community have oftenbeen initiated outside the university A fewdays before President Francois Mitterandrsquos1984 visit to Village Homes designer and de-veloper Mike Corbett was on his bike to visitthen UC Davis Chancellor Jim Meyer toexplain that the French President did not havetime to visit the campus and to invite theChancellor to come out to Village Homes togreet the French dignitaries Residents of Vil-lage Homes including graduate students pro-fessionals and UCD faculty members havemade notable environmental and design con-tributions to the neighborhood and largercommunity Residents Rob Thayer JimZanetto Bruce Maeda Virginia Thigpen BobSchneider and Marshall Hunt are notable ex-amples2 My purpose is not to collect substantial newdata on Village Homes but to synthesize andmake available existing information in a usefuland accessible case study format A secondarygoal is to show the projectrsquos significance forlandscape architecture and urban design sothat it can be more easily replicated in the fu-ture An additional goal is to provide a criticalreview of the project so that future researcherscan learn from both the projectrsquos success andits failures3 For more information on LAFrsquos Land andCommunity Design Case Study Initiative seetheir web site at wwwlafoundationorg For anexample of an issue-based case study see Fran-cis 2001c4 This article presents selected parts of theVillage Homes Case Study For the full case seeFrancis 2001b Most of this baseline data istaken from the Local Government Commis-

sion case study on Village Homes While manysources list information on Village Homes Ihave used this data as Judy Corbett is Execu-tive Director of the LGC This data was alsochecked against the Corbettrsquos Designing Sus-tainable Communities book (2000) and in inter-views with the developers5 Lecture by Mike Corbett on Village Homesat UC Davis in 1988 The fact that he was ableto get the plan approved is a testament to histenacity and persuasion6 The cul-de-sacs in Village Homes distinguishit from the new urbanist communities that en-courage gridded streets and do not allow cul-de-sacs A 1997 survey done by the UrbanLand Institute shows that a majority of US homebuyers would prefer to live on acul-de-sac 7 It would be useful to repeat Lenzrsquos survey orsomething similar every three to five years8 The control neighborhood was a more con-ventional suburban neighborhood built aboutthe same time as Village Homes Houses wereabout 20 percent larger and lots 60 percentlarger than Village Homes and lacked commu-nal open space Lenzrsquos study involved 89 ques-tionnaires returned from Village Homes resi-dents (a 37 percent return rate) and 15 fromthe control neighborhood residents (28 per-cent return)9 A useful study would be to examine the ef-fect of environmental values on attachment toplace Are these values shaped by the place ordo values create the sense of place In the caseof Village Homes it is the interaction of thesetwo that form neighborhood attitudes and asense of belonging10 Unlike Lenz Owens utilized a multi-method approach to the POE involving inter-views along with observations archival re-search and recording of behavior tracesWhile the sample size was smaller (25 total in-terviews compared to Lenzrsquos 89) Owensrsquo re-port offers a more holistic and comprehensiveview of the neighborhood11 Some of these observations are based onpapers written by my students at UC Davis in-cluding ldquoLandscape Architecture 220mdashPublicSpace and Public Liferdquo Winter 200012 A Canadian developer visiting VillageHomes noted that ldquoit looked like a slumrdquo in re-action to the somewhat unkempt landscapeMost developed communities adopt a mani-cured approach to their landscape and rein-force this through strict regulations requiringconformity and a high level of maintenanceVillage Homes took a different approachwhere natural aesthetic is more highly valuedBut it does raise the issue of the aesthetics ofecological design Thayer (1994) has provideda useful theory that suggests that the publicvalues making sustainability visible Clearly thehigh satisfaction of Village Homes by its resi-dents proves this true13 There may be nothing wrong with this Just as other great planned communities likeReston and Columbia are unique so too isVillage Homes Perhaps what is more impor-

tant than total replication is that the successesof Village Homes be reproduced elsewhere14 Not all of these factors were true in the be-ginning but have since become important 15 See A Case Study Method for Landscape Archi-tecture (Francis 1999a) which presents SeaRanch as a case study

ReferencesBainbridge David Judy Corbett and John

Hofacre 1979 Village Homes Solar HouseDesigns Emmaus PA Rodale Press

Brill Michael 2002 ldquoProblems with MistakingCommunity Life for Public Liferdquo Places14(2) 48ndash55

Booth Derek B and Jennifer Leavitt 1999ldquoField Evaluation of Permeable Pave-ment Systems for Improved StormwaterManagementrdquo Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 65(3) 314-325

Browning Bill and Kim Hamilton 1993 ldquoVil-lage Homes A Model Solar CommunityProves its Worthrdquo In Context A QuarterlyJournal of Sustainable Culture 35 (Spring1993) 33

Calthorpe Peter William Fulton and RobertFishman 2000 The Regional City NewUrbanism and the End of Sprawl Washing-ton D C Island Press

Carr Stephen and Kevin Lynch 1981 ldquoOpenSpace Freedom and Controlrdquo In UrbanOpen Spaces edited by L Taylor NewYork Rizolli

Cooper Marcus Clare 2000 ldquoLooking Back atVillage Homesrdquo Landscape Architecture90(7) 125 128

Cooper Marcus Clare and Marni Barnes eds1999 Healing Gardens New York Wiley

Corbett Judy and Michael N Corbett 1983Toward Better Neighborhood Design Lan-sing Human Ecology Monograph Se-ries East Lansing College of HumanEcology Michigan State University

______ 2000 Designing Sustainable Communi-ties Learning from Village Homes Wash-ington D C Island Press

Corbett Michael N 1981 A Better Place to LiveRodale Press

Corbett Michael N and Judy Corbett 1979Village Homes A Neighborhood De-signed with Energy Conservation inMind Proceedings of the 3rd NationalPassive Solar Conference AmericanSection of the International Solar Soci-ety Newark Delaware

Duany Andres Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk andJeff Speck 2000 Suburban Nation TheRise of Sprawl and the Decline of the Ameri-can Dream New York North Point Press

Ferguson Bruce K 1998 Introduction toStormwater New York Wiley

Fitch Mike 1999 Growing Pains Thirty Yearsin the History of Davis Unpublishedmanuscript Davis City of Davis Chap-ter 4 Village Homes Pioneers in aChanging World

Francis Mark 1985 Childrenrsquos Use of OpenSpace in Village Homes Childrenrsquos Envi-ronments 1(4) 36-38


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40

______ 1988 ldquoNegotiating Between Child andAdult Design Valuesrdquo Design Studies9(2) 67-75

______ ed 1995 Open Space-Oriented Develop-ment Davis Center for Design Re-search

______ 1999a A Case Study Method for Land-scape Architecture Final Report Washing-ton D C Landscape ArchitectureFoundation

______ 2000 ldquoPlanning in Placerdquo Places 13(1) 30-33

______ 2001a ldquoA Case Study Method forLandscape Architecturerdquo LandscapeJournal 19(2) 15-29

______ 2001b Village Homes A Place-Based CaseStudy Washington D C Landscape Ar-chitecture Foundation

______ 2001c User Needs and Conflicts in UrbanOpen Space An Issue-Based Case StudyWashington D C Landscape Architec-ture Foundation

Francis Mark Lisa Cashdan and Lynn Pax-son 1984 Community Open Spaces Wash-ington D C Island Press

Fulton William 1996 The New Urbanism Hopeor Hype for America Lincoln MA Lin-coln Institute of Land Policy

Gehl Jan 1987 The Life between Buildings NewYork Van Nostrand Reinhold

Girling Cynthia L and Kenneth Helphand1994 Yard Street Park The Design of Sub-urban Open Space New York Wiley

Girling Cynthia L R Kellett D PopkoJ Rochefort and C Roe 2000 GreenNeighborhoods Planning and DesignGuidelines for Air Water and Urban ForestQuality Eugene Center for Housing In-novation University of Oregon

Hamrin Jan 1978 Two Energy ConservingCommunities Implications for PublicPolicy PhD Dissertation University ofCalifornia Davis

Hayden Dolores 1995 The Power of PlaceCambridge MIT Press

Hawken Paul Amory Lovins and L HunterLovins 1999 Natural Capitalism NewYork Little Brown

Hough Michael 1995 Cities and Natural Pro-cess New York Routledge

Howard Ebenezer 1965 Garden Cities for To-morrow Cambridge MA MIT Press

Jacobs Jane 1961 The Death and Life of GreatAmerican Cities New York RandomHouse

Jackson D 1999 ldquoBack to the Garden A Sub-urban Dreamrdquo Time February 22pp 78ndash79

Jouret-Epstein Ellen 2000 Letter to the Edi-tor Landscape Architecture 90(9) 9 11

Kaplan Rachel Stephen Kaplan and RobertL Ryan 1998 With People in Mind De-sign and Management of Everyday NatureWashington D C Island Press

Lang Jon 1994 Urban Design The American Ex-perience New York Van Nostrand Rein-hold

Lang R and A Armour 1982 Planning Landto Conserve Energy 40 Case Studies fromCanada and the United States Ottawa En-vironment Canada

Lenz Thomas 1990 A Post-Occupancy Evalu-ation of Village Homes Davis Califor-nia Unpublished Masterrsquos Thesis Tech-nical University of Munich

Local Government Commission 1991 TheAwhanhee Principles Sacramento

Local Government Commission 1999 VillageHomes A Model Project Sacramento

Lofland Lyn 1998 The Public Realm Exploringthe Cityrsquos Quintessential Social TerritoryNew York Aldine De Gruyter

Loux Jeff and Robert Wolcott 1994 Innova-tion in Community Design The DavisExperience Unpublished MonographCity of Davis

Lyle John 1996 Regenerative Design for Sustain-able Development New York Wiley

Lynch Kevin 1981 Good City Form CambridgeMIT Press

McHarg Ian 1969 Design With Nature NewYork Wiley

Meltzer G 2000 Cohousing Verifying the Im-portance of Community in the Applica-tion of Environmentalism Journal of Ar-chitectural and Planning Research 17(2)110ndash132

Moore Robin C 1993 Plants for Play A PlantSelection Guide for Childrenrsquos Outdoor En-vironments Berkeley CA MIG Commu-nications

National Association of Home Builders 2000Smart Growth Resources Village HomesWashington D C NAB

Owens Patsy et al 1993 A Post OccupancyEvaluation of Village Homes Davis Uni-versity of California Center for DesignResearch

Richman amp Associates 1997 Start at the SourceResidential Site Planning amp Design Guid-ance for Stormwater Quality ProtectionOakland CA Bay Area StormwaterManagement Agencies Association(BASMAA)

Southworth Michael and E Ben-Joseph1997 Streets and the Shaping of Towns andCities New York McGraw Hill

Stein Clarence 1989 Toward New Towns forAmerica Cambridge MIT Press

Thompson George F and Frederick Steinereds 1997 Ecological Design and Plan-ning New York Wiley

Thayer Robert L Jr 1977 Designing an Ex-perimental Solar Community Land-scape Architecture 16(5)223-228

______ 1994 Gray World Green Heart NewYork Wiley

Thayer Robert L Jr and Thomas Richman1984 Water-Conserving Landscape De-signrdquo In Energy Conserving Site DesignG McPherson ed Washington D CLandscape Architecture Foundation

Village Homeowners Association 1995 NewHomeowners Guide

______ 1995 Welcome to Village Homes______ 1999 Community Garden GuidelinesWilson Alex Jen L Uncapher Lisa A Mc-

Manigal and L Hunter 1998 Green De-velopment Integrating Ecology and Real Es-tate New York Wiley

Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41

ket time (Coldwell Banker Residen-tial cited in Wilson 1998)

Despite its success and fameVillage Homes has not been repli-cated as a whole While many of its features such as open channeldrainage and passive solar house de-sign have become more standardpractice in community design itsholistic approach has not beenadopted This raises the question ofthe barriers that prevent innovativecommunity design from being morewidely implemented In the case ofVillage Homes an understanding ofits design and development processas well as impacts may help explainits significance and potential forlandscape architecture and commu-nity design (Figure 1)

The Case Study MethodThis case study utilized a

method prepared for the LandscapeArchitecture Foundation (Francis1999a 2001a) The method was de-veloped as a template to provide auniform and comparable way to doc-ument and evaluate landscape archi-tecture projects and issues Threetypes of case studies are being devel-oped by LAFmdashplace-based issue-based and hypothetical case studiesfor teaching This is the first place-based case study developed by LAFwith several others to follow3

The case study method involvesthe collection and analysis of differ-ent kinds of information includingbaseline data role of key project par-ticipants financial aspects projectgoals and the design and decisionmaking process In addition this casedocuments use perceptions uniqueconstraints project success and limi-tations

The methods used to developthis case study included archival re-search of key documents on VillageHomes published reviews of past re-search and case studies on VillageHomes internet searches numerousvisits to the community over twentyyears including behavioral observa-tions and a short time spent living inthe community and studies of chil-dren in Village Homes (Francis 19811985 1988) In addition awards orspecial recognition descriptions in-

terviews with the designersdevelop-ers of the community and interviewswith residents and users non-residents maintenance peoplegardeners were used


Village Homes Case Study Summary Data 4

Project Name Village HomesLocation Davis California located in Central Valley

PutahCache Creek Bioregion 60 miles north-east of San Francisco and 15 miles west ofSacramento

Date DesignedPlanned 1973ndash1975Construction Completed Built in phases (50 units at a time) from

groundbreaking in 1975 to build out in 1982Land Cost $434000 (in 1974)Development Costs $2329241 (in 1974)Site Improvement Costs $313107 for swimming pool bike paths land-

scapingLender Sacramento Savings BankHouses 600ndash3000 Sq Ft Also a nine-bedroom co-op

house has about a dozen residentsHouse Construction Costs $38 per square foot (1976 dollars)House Building 60 percent built by developer and 40 by

small contractorsInitial Sale Price per Unit $31000ndash$75000Resale Price per Unit $15000ndash$450000 (2000)

Resale $10ndash25 square foot higher than othersales in Davis (1995) sold in 30ndash50 less time(Coldwell Banker)

Return on Investment 23 per annum for 13 investment partnersSize 60 acresDensity 4 dwelling unitsacre (77 dwelling unitsacre

not counting common landscape) 6933people per sq miles Vicinity density 3ndash5 dwelling unitsacre Vicinity 3458 people per square mile

Open Space 25 of site in public and community openspace

Land Use 242 housing units (222 single family units 22apartments) 650 residents Commercial Officespace 4000 sq ft with 15 small businesses in-cluding consulting and professional firmsAgricultural uses 12000 sq ft 12 acres ofgreenbelts and open space 12 acres of com-mon agricultural land two village greensswimming pool community center buildingrestaurant dance studio and day care center

Lot Size Approximately 4000 sq ftLand in Streets and Parking 15 percent in Village Homes 22 percent in

VicinityStreet Widths 23 ft in Village Homes 44 ft VicinityAverage Number of Cars 18 in Village Homes 21 in VicinityLandscape Architect(s) Michael Corbett Town Planners Davis Cali-

forniaClientDeveloper Michael and Judy CorbettManaged By Village Homeowners Association

W211LJ_ch2 102202 236 PM 4















Francis 25


W211LJ_ch2 102202 236 PM Page 25












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 26








Francis 27












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 27















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 28







Francis 29


bull Streets

bull Central Green

bull Vineyards

bull Orchards

bull Common areas

bull Playgrounds







W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 29













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 30







Francis 31


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 31












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 32





Francis 33











W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 33
















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41















Francis 25


W211LJ_ch2 102202 236 PM Page 25












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 26








Francis 27












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 27















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 28







Francis 29


bull Streets

bull Central Green

bull Vineyards

bull Orchards

bull Common areas

bull Playgrounds







W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 29













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM 0







Francis 31


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 31












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 32





Francis 33











W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 33
















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 26








Francis 27












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 27















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 28







Francis 29


bull Streets

bull Central Green

bull Vineyards

bull Orchards

bull Common areas

bull Playgrounds







W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 29













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 30







Francis 31


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 31












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 32





Francis 33











W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 33
















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM 0














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41








Francis 27












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 27















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 28







Francis 29


bull Streets

bull Central Green

bull Vineyards

bull Orchards

bull Common areas

bull Playgrounds







W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 29













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 30







Francis 31


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 31












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 32





Francis 33











W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 33
















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 28







Francis 29


bull Streets

bull Central Green

bull Vineyards

bull Orchards

bull Common areas

bull Playgrounds







W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 29













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 30







Francis 31


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 31












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 32





Francis 33











W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 33
















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41







Francis 29


bull Streets

bull Central Green

bull Vineyards

bull Orchards

bull Common areas

bull Playgrounds







W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 29













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 30







Francis 31


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 31












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 32





Francis 33











W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 33
















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 30







Francis 31


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 31












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 32





Francis 33











W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 33
















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41







Francis 31


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 31












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 32





Francis 33











W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 33
















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41












W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 32





Francis 33











W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 33
















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41





Francis 33











W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 33
















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41
















W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 34









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41









Francis 35


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 35













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 36











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41











Francis 37


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 37













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41













W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 38











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41











Francis 39


W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 39























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41























W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 40














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41














































Francis 41

W211LJ_ch2 102202 237 PM Page 41

v illage homes: a case study in community design · utilized a case study approach. he developed...

Documents