LioCan Hawii 0085A 11335

SHARED LIVING DESIGN FOR A
MID-RISE HOUSING IN OʻAHU
A DARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF ARCHITECTURE
MAY 2022
By
Moises FocJoi Lio Can
Dissertation Committee:
Hyoung-June Park, Chairperson
Philip Garboden
Cathi Ho Schar
Keywords: Shared living, Co-living, spatial organization, housing

ii
Acknowledgments
Without my committee, Philip Garboden, Cathi Ho Schar, and Chairperson Hyoung-June Park,
this dissertation would not have been possible. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and
encouragement. Working with you all has been great.
Thank you to my family for the support throughout my education and for always encouraging me
and putting a smile on my face whenever I need it.
Thank you to my friends; after long years of hard work, sweat, and laughter, may we always
treasure every moment in our hearts.
iii
Abstract
In recent years, Hawaiʻi has seen increased demand for housing units. It has caused living
conditions to be higher, overcrowding homes, and emotional and physical stress on the residents.
Shared living and co-living are strategies that could provide a viable alternative solution to housing
since they can increase private spaces by the better use of spaces. This dissertation develops
architectural design prototypes of a new mid-rise using the values and qualities of the shared
living and co-living model to tackle affordable housing issues in Hawaiʻi. This study creates design
guidelines centered around maximizing the percentage of private space, providing comfortable
living conditions, and minimizing unused spaces. It develops a system that identifies a step-by-
step procedure to generate floor plan optimization. This dissertation culminates in applying the
guidelines for a conceptual design for mid-rise housing at the University of Hawaiʻi West Oʻahu.
These shared living design guidelines will provide future designers and architects with ideas for a
conceptual approach to developing future housing in Hawaiʻi.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract....................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................v
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................vii
List of Tables................................................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................11
1.2 Project Goals..............................................................................................................11
1.3 Research Scope..........................................................................................................12
1.4 Research Methodology...............................................................................................13
1.5 Defining the spaces....................................................................................................16
CHAPTER 2: HAWAIʻI HOUSING CONDITIONS

2.1 Need for Housing in Hawaiʻi........................................................................................19
2.2 Living Issues...............................................................................................................20
2.3 Case Studies..............................................................................................................21
2.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................44
CHAPTER 3: SHARED LIVING AND CO-LIVING

3.1 Shared living..............................................................................................................47
3.2 Advantages................................................................................................................48
3.3 Case Studies..............................................................................................................49
3.3 Conclusion..................................................................................................................76
v
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.1 Design Guidelines......................................................................................................79
CHAPTER 5: APPLYING DESIGN GUIDELINES

5.1 Site Location...............................................................................................................91
5.2 Applying design guidelines into the site......................................................................93
5.3 Prototype #1...............................................................................................................94
5.4 Conclusion - Prototype #1........................................................................................101
5.5 Prototype #2.............................................................................................................104
5.6 Conclusion - Prototype #2........................................................................................108
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
6.1 Conclusion................................................................................................................111
6.2 Future Work..............................................................................................................112
References...............................................................................................................................113
06
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Research path in developing the design guidelines 17

Figure 1.2: Classification of spaces in multifamily housing 19
Figure 2.1. Overcrowding living conditions 22
Figure 2.2. Spatial distribution of Hawaiian Family Households 47
Figure 3.1. Diagram showing the difference between Traditional housing and Shared
living housing 49
Figure 3.2. Spatial distribution of Shared Living 79
Figure 4.1. Design rules phases 82
Figure 4.2. Location of Vertical Circulation Core types 83
Figure 4.3. Location of Shared Spaces types 84
Figure 4.4. Expanding shared spaces 85
Figure 4.5. Types of voids in shared spaces 86
Figure 4.6. Shared Circulation purpose 87
Figure 4.7. Types of living units, private spaces, and common spaces 88
Figure 4.8. Possibilities of sharing 88
Figure 4.9 Different examples using the design guidelines 90
Figure 5.1. Google Earth image of University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu campus and
location of site 93
Figure 5.2. University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu Master Plan, 2018 94
Figure 5.3. Design Project Site Plan 95
Figure 5.4. Calculating Maximum Building Envelope and FAR 96
Figure 5.5. Applying design guidelines to prototype no.1 98
Figure 5.6. Prototype #1 - Ground Floor Plan 100
Figure 5.7. Prototype #1 - Typical Floor Plan 101
Figure 5.8. Prototype #1 - Elevations 102
Figure 5.9. Spatial distribution comparison between prototype #1, shared living, and
Hawaiian households 103
07
vii
Figure 5.10. Renderings showing from NE (top), East (middle), and West (bottom) 104
Figure 5.11 Renderings showing from North (top), and Internal Courtyard (bottom) 105
Figure 5.12. Applying design guidelines to prototype #2 107
Figure 5.13. Prototype #2 - Typical Floor Plan 108
Figure 5.14. Prototype #2 - Elevations 109
Figure 5.15. Spatial distribution comparison between prototype #2, prototype #1, shared
living and Hawaiian households 110
Figure 5.16. Renderings showing from East (top), North (middle), and SE (bottom) 111
Figure 6.1. Aerial view rendering of prototype #1 and prototype #2 114
viii
08
List of Tables
Table 1. Keauhou Lane Spatial Distribution Calculation 27
Table 2. Ola Ka ’Ilima Artspace Lofts Spatial Distribution Calculation 31
Table 3. Loft at Waikiki Spatial Distribution Calculation 35
Table 4. 400 Keawe Street Spatial Distribution Calculation 39
Table 5. Hale Kewalo Spatial Distribution Calculation 43
Table 6. Average Spatial Distribution Calculation of Hawaiian Family Households 46
Table 7. Treehouse Coliving Apartments Spatial Distribution Calculation 55
Table 8. Zeze Osaka Coliving House Spatial Distribution Calculation 59
Table 9. Villages at Buhler Active Living Center House Spatial Distribution Calculation 63
Table 10. Surfbreak HNL House Spatial Distribution Calculation 67
Table 11. Co-Dwell Spatial Distribution Calculation 71
Table 12. Roam Coliving in Bali Spatial Distribution Calculation 75
Table 13. Average Spatial Distribution Calculation of Shared Living 78
09
ix
CHAPTER 1:
PROJECT INTRODUCTION
10
1.1 Introduction
According to the Hawaiʻi housing Planning Study 2019, Hawaiʻi needs 50,156 housing
units to make long-term housing demands. The lack of housing supply leads to an increase in rent
prices, overcrowding of living conditions, and a reduction in tenants’ quality of life. Shared living is
a living model that tackles some of these issues by allowing more affordable housing through the
better use of space and amenities and sharing living costs.
Problem statement
The research looks to develop an architectural design prototype of a new mid-rise affordable
housing for Hawaiʻi using the values and qualities of the shared living and co-living model to tackle
housing demand, living conditions, and affordability issues. Thus, the main guiding question for
this research are:
• How can we increase the percentage of private spaces in a given boundary while
maintaining comfortable living conditions?
• How much percentage of shared space can we provide for the users to live comfortably?
• How much percentage of overlapping or unused spaces can we minimize?
• How much percentage of circulation can be minimized?
1.2 Project Goals
This research aims to develop design guidelines using shared living strategies as an
organizational tool to develop optimal floor plans that increase living units while maintaining
comfortable living conditions in a given boundary. While there are other objectives, this paper
focuses on two main goals:
11
• Understand the average ratio of shared spaces, living spaces, and circulation. This
research aims to understand the current spatial distribution of living spaces in Hawaiʻian
households and shared living models.
• Find the optimal ratio between shared spaces, living space, and circulation. This thesis
will focus on increasing living spaces while still maintaining and balance between shared
spaces, living spaces, and circulation.
1.3 Research Scope
This research aims to develop design guidelines for developing floor plan optimization
using shared living and co-living as organizational tools. A conceptual design will be further
developed to examine the effectiveness of these guidelines and design criteria.
Analysis of precedent studies about Hawaiian family households and shared living will be
developed. The analysis will focus on spatial distribution and spatial organization. Quantitative
data will be researched to understand the percentage and ratio of shared spaces and private
spaces.
This study seeks to identify the potential of the shared living and co-living models to
increase the amount of private space while still maintaining good living conditions in a given
boundary. We can create optimal floor plans by using the design guidelines that focus on shared
spaces as an organizational design tool. This dissertation seeks to contribute to the argument
regarding the need for housing in Hawaiʻi.
12
1.4 Research Methodology
The research will use literature review and case studies to understand design patterns,
approaches, and guidelines. The research approach is based upon:
• Research and analysis of current Hawaiʻi housing trends, shared living, and co-living
spaces
• Development of design guidelines from the previous research
• Site selection to define the specific building boundaries and target and user groups
• Provide prototype studies and compare their effectiveness
The dissertation is divided into three main parts:
• Chapter 2: Investigation of current housing spatial relationships in Hawaiʻi. In this chapter,

the analysis and collection of quantitative data on Hawaiʻian households will be conducted
from literature reviews and case studies. These will help understand the users and their
living conditions, the sizes and proportions of the rooms that allow for families to live
comfortably, spatial distribution, and adjacency.
• Chapter 3: Investigation of shared living and co-living models and their spatial relationships.
This chapter will analyze and collect quantitative data on the shared living models from
literature reviews and case studies. These will allow understanding of the programming
needs, space allocation, spatial distribution, and adjacency.
13
• Chapter 4 and 5: Design Guidelines and Design Application for a mid-rise in Honolulu.
The analysis obtained from the previous chapters will allow the development of design
guidelines that optimize spatial distribution that maximizes private spaces. These will help
to develop different scenarios where we can do comparison studies. The final floor plan
will be successful if these criteria are effective:
• Increasing the percentage of private space in a specific boundary

• Maximizing shared space which leads to improving living conditions while
increasing private space
• Minimizing unused, wasted, or redundant spaces
14
Lack of housing units in Hawaiʻi
leads
• Overcrowding conditions
• Reduce the residents quality of life
how to tackle it?
Shared living model: improving floor

plan and spatial layout to maximize
private area and minimize common
areas in a given boundary
Co-living and shared living Hawaiʻi households
Case Studies and Case Studies and

Literature Review Literature Review
• Space allocation • Users and living conditions

• Programming • Size and room proportions
• Size and room proportions • Programming
• Spatial adjacency Spatial adjacency
Design guidelines
Optimal spatial floor plan

• Maximizing private spaces
• Minimizing unused spaces
• Comfortable shared spaces
Figure 1.1: Research path in developing the design guidelines. Source: Author.
15
1.5 Defining the spaces
For the purpose of this research, defining the spaces is necessary so we can compare and
contrast the spatial distribution of spaces between the Hawaiʻian households and shared living
models. Therefore, the spaces are classified in terms of their sharing capabilities between different
users. The sharing can be divided into sharing between different households in the building, and
between other members in the same household unit. These spaces are:
• Building Shared Spaces: These spaces are used by different households members in the
same building. Some examples of these spaces are the community kitchen, community
lounge, community laundry, gardens, pools, etc.
• Building Shared Circulation: It is the circulation that is shared with different households
members, such as elevators, stairs, and public corridors.
• Private Spaces: It is a space owned by a member or members of a household, such as

bedrooms
• Unit Common Spaces: These spaces are shared within the same household. Some
examples are living rooms, kitchen, bathrooms, storage, etc.
• Unit Common Circulation: It is the circulation spaces used within the same household unit,
such as hallways.
• Void Spaces: These spaces connect with the outside, allowing natural lighting and
ventilation. Examples of these areas are atriums and courtyards.
16
BUILDING SHARED SPACE UNIT COMMON SPACE
Space shared with different households Space shared within same household
members
BUILDING SHARED CIRCULATION UNIT COMMON CIRCULATION
Circulation shared with different Circulation shared within the same

household members household
PRIVATE SPACE VOID SPACES
Space owned by a member/members of Void spaces that allows for connection

household with outside for natural lighting and
ventilation
Figure 1.2: Classification of spaces in multifamily housing. Source: Author.
17
CHAPTER 2:
HAWAIʻI HOUSING CONDITIONS
18
2.1 Need for Housing in Hawaiʻi
Currently, Hawaiʻi is in need of affordable housing options. According to the Hawaiʻi Senate
Bill 2561 Act127, “For the period from 2015 to 2025, Hawaiʻi will require an additional 64,700
housing units to meet projected long-term housing demands. Of this amount, 22,247 households
of all income levels will require rental units. The need for affordable rental units is particularly acute
for households with low incomes”13. This means that we need to provide opportunities to increase
the supply of living units and provide affordable options that meet Hawaiʻi’s needs. The housing
stock needs to include more affordable rental options, such as smaller units (accessory dwelling
units, studios, tiny homes, and micro-units) and more compact housing designs (townhouses and
row-houses) to minimize land costs14.
Hawaiʻi’s housing market is not building enough housing to keep up with the demand,
leading to many people living in overcrowded homes, spending more than 45% of their
incomes on combined housing and transportation costs, or are homeless and living on
the streets15. Renting prices in Hawaiʻi are considered one of the more expensive places
to live than most mainland USA places. For example, living in a studio on Oʻahu can range
from $1000 to more than $1,600 per month, not including utilities, which can be around
$150 per month per person16. Because of Hawaiʻi’s high living costs and lack of housing
supply, people are moving back to families or living together with friends to minimize costs.
13 “A Bill for an Act S.B. No. 2561.” SB2561 CD1.DOC, https://www.capitol.Hawaiʻi.gov/session2016/bills/SB2561_CD1_.HTM.

14 Housing Oahu: Affordable Housing Strategy. 8 Sept. 2015, https://www.honolulu.gov/rep/site/dpptod/dpptod_docs2/Affordable_
Housing_Strategy_and_appendix.pdf, Page 7
15 Ibid, Page 1
16 Real Estate And Living Hawaiʻi. “Cost of Living in Hawaiʻi - 2021.” Oahu Real Estate, Real Estate And Living Hawaiʻi, 17 Oct.
2021, https://realHawaiʻi.co/blog/cost-of-living-Hawaiʻi#:~:text=Renting%20in%20Hawaiʻi%20is%20much,per%20month%20for%20
one%20person.
19
2.2 Living Issues
The lack of housing supply leads to higher rents and difficult living conditions for all
tenants. When housing is expensive and affordable options are limited, living spaces changes to
accommodate families and friends. Different living rooms and storages start to become bedrooms
for relatives and friends. This makes all the tenants face many emotional and physical issues such
as an increase in personal stress, reduced quality of life, and overcrowding living conditions17.
In 2019, Hawai’i continues to have one of the highest average rents in the USA, followed
by the District of Columbia and New York. For the past decade, Hawai’i’s median gross rent has
consistently been 50% to 55% higher than the national median gross rent. The data suggest that
renters in Hawai’i are paying more for their accommodations now than they were in 2014 across
all types (single-family and multi-family) and sizes (one-bedroom through five-bedroom) 18.
Figure 2.1. Overcrowding living conditions
17 “A Bill for an Act S.B. No. 2561.” SB2561 CD1.DOC, https://www.capitol.Hawaiʻi.gov/session2016/bills/SB2561_CD1_.HTM.

18 Hawaiʻi Housing Plannning Study, 2019. SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc., Dec. 2019, https://dbedt.Hawaiʻi.gov/
hhfdc/files/2020/01/FINAL-State_Hawaiʻi-Housing-Planning-Study.pdf. Page 25
20
2.3 Case Studies
To increase the supply of private spaces, we need to understand the current

spatial distribution in Hawaiʻian Households. The precedent studies selected are projects
that show the current living situations. The range of multifamily housing presented in this
section is located in Hawai’i and varies in building size. These projects are analyzed in
terms of spatial distribution, spatial organization, space adjacency, and programming.
Each of the precedent studies includes some facts, diagrams, and pictures.
Floor plans were also obtained to understand the case studies’ spatial distribution and
adjacency. The spaces are also quantified to calculate the ratio between building shared
spaces, unit common spaces, private spaces, and circulation. Additionally, a program
adjacency diagram indicates how the spaces programs within the project are related.
At the end of this section, a precedent matrix shows all of the precedents to easily compare
and contrast each project side-by-side with one another.
21
KEAUHOU LANE
502 Keawe St, Honolulu, HI 96813
Architect:
hiarchy LLP
Status:
Completed
Year:
2017
Size:
17,918 SF
No. Floor:
6
Community Amenities:
Lounge, Outdoor decks,
Bike room, Laundry
Room, Courtyard
Building type:
Low-rise building
Usage:
Rental apartments
Keauhou Lane. 18 Dec. 2013, https://

dbedt.Hawaiʻi.gov/hcda/files/2014/02/
combined-drawing-sheets.pdf.
“Keauhou Lane.” Architect, 19 Sept. 2018,

https://www.architectmagazine.com/
project-gallery/keauhou-lane_1.
“Keauhou Lane.” Keauhou Lane, https://

www.keauhoulane.com/.
22
Spatial adjacency
Bedroom
Living Room Bathroom
Kitchen
Unit Entrance
Laundry
Garden
Elevator/Egress
Storage
Amenities Deck
Building Entrance
Rec Room
Location of Vertical Circulation Location of private spaces and common spaces
Building Shared Spaces

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
23
KEAUHOU LANE
502 Keawe St, Honolulu, HI 96813
2nd Floor Plan
3rd-6th Floor Plan

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
24
Shared Spaces Common Space Private Space Shared Circulation
Ground Floor
Name SF Name SF Quantity Total SF Name SF Quantity Total SF Name SF
Restaurant 14,290 Corridor/Lobby 1,721
Retail 17,590 Vertical Circulation 1,176
Bike Storage 623 Pedestrian Passage 13,168
Trash/Lobby 2,239
Total 34,742 Total 16,065
2nd Floor
Amenities Deck 12,130 1 BR 1 BR Circulatio & Lobby 5,259
Rec Room/Laundry 1,721 Kitchen + Living 204 Bedroom 155 Vertical Circulation 1,176
Bathroom 62
Total 266 17 4,522 Total 155 17 2,635
2 BR 2 BR
Living 110 Bedroom 1 130
Kitchen 100 Bedroom 2 160
Dining 187
Bathroom 60
Total 457 12 5,484 Total 290 12 3,480
Studio Studio
Kitchen + Living 144 Bedroom 88
Bathroom 60
Total 204 12 2,448 Total 88 12 1,056
Total 13,851 Total 12,454 7,171 Total 6,435
3rd-6th Floor
Storage/ Laundry 802 1 BR 1 BR Circulatio & Lobby 4,929
Kitchen + Living 204 Bedroom 155 Vertical Circulation 1,176
Bathroom 62
Total 266 17 4,522 Total 155 17 2,635
2 BR 2 BR
Living 110 Bedroom 1 130
Kitchen 100 Bedroom 2 160
Dining 187
Bathroom 60
Total 457 13 5,941 Total 290 13 3,770
Studio Studio
Kitchen + Living 144 Bedroom 88
Bathroom 60
Total 204 12 2,448 Total 88 12 1,056
Total 802 Total 12,911 7,461 Total 6,105
Shared SpaceCommon Space Private SpaceShared Circulation

Total SF
Ground Floor 34,742 16,065
2nd Floor 13,851 12,454 7,171 6,435
3rd Floor 802 12,911 7,461 6,105
4th Floor 802 12,911 7,461 6,105
5th Floor 802 12,911 7,461 6,105
6th Floor 802 12,911 7,461 6,105
Total 51,801 64,098 37,015 46,920 199,834
Ratio 25.9% 32.1% 18.5% 23.5%
Table 1. Keauhou Lane Spatial Distribution Calculation
25
OLA KA ’ILIMA ARTSPACE LOFTS
1025 Waimanu Street Honolulu, HI, 96814
Architect:
Urban Works
Status:
Completed
Year:
2019
Size:
33,194 SF
No. Floor:
8
Lobby gallery, courtyard,
playground, resident
gardening, event space
Building type:
Low-rise building
Usage:
Rental apartments, shops,
community center
“Ola Ka ‘Ilima Artspace Lofts.” OLA KA

’ILIMA ARTSPACE LOFTS, Artspace
Projects, Inc., 2018, https://www.artspace.
org/Hawaiʻi.
26
Spatial adjacency
Bedroom
Living Room
Kitchen Bathroom
Unit Entrance
Artist’s Workshop
Courtyard
Restrooms
Elevator/Egress
Co-Kitchen
Garden
Laundry
Building Entrance

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
27
OLA KA ’ILIMA ARTSPACE LOFTS
1025 Waimanu Street Honolulu, HI, 96814
3rd Floor plan

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
4th-8th.Floor plan Shared Circulation
28
Ground Floor
Art Space 997 Vertical Circulation 780
Retail 1,955 Corridor 1,623
PA'I 4,691
Support 2,062
2nd Level
Support 4,211 Circulation 861
Vertical Circulation 780
3rd
Community 3,585 2 BR 2 BR Circulatio & Lobby 2,886
Support 238 Kitchen + Living 764 Bedroom 1 125 Vertical Circulation 780
Courtyard 9,213 Bathroom 42 Bedroom 2 125
Total 806 10 8,060 Total 250 10 2,500
3 BR 3 BR
Kitchen + Living 600 Bedroom 1 193
Bathroom 1 60 Bedroom 2 113
Corridor 333
Total 13,036 Total 1,053 4 4,212 Total 430 4 1,720 Total 3,666
4TH- 8TH
Support 238 1 BR 1 BR Circulatio & Lobby 2,886
Kitchen + Living 619 Bedroom 1 130 Vertical Circulation 780
Bathroom 42
Total 661 10 6,610 Total 130 10 1,300
2 BR 2 BR
Kitchen + Living 733 Bedroom 1 100
Bathroom 60 Bedroom 2 90
Total 238 Total 793 4 3,172 Total 190 4 760 Total 3,666

Total SF
2nd Floor 4,211 1,641
3rd Floor 13,036 12,272 4,220 3,666
4th Floor 238 9,782 2,060 3,666
5th Floor 238 9,782 2,060 3,666
6th Floor 238 9,782 2,060 3,666
7th Floor 238 9,782 2,060 3,666
8th Floor 238 9,782 2,060 3,666
Total 27,904 51,400 12,460 22,374 114,138
Ratio 24.4% 45.0% 11% 19.6%
Table 2. Ola Ka ’Ilima Artspace Lofts Spatial Distribution Calculation
29
LOFT AT WAIKIKI
427 Launiu St, Honolulu, HI 96815
Architect:
Wilson Okamoto
Corporation
Status:
Completed
Year:
2007
Size:
29,907 SF
No. Floor:
6
Courtyard, pool, sundeck,
spa
Building type:
Low-rise building
Usage:
Residential condominium
“Loft at Waikiki, Hawaiʻi: Hi pro Realty:

United States.” Hiprorealtyllc, https://www.
hiprorealty.com/-loft-at-waikiki.
Loft at Waikiki. Final Environmental

Assessment. Wilson Okamoto
Corporation, Feb. 2004, http://oeqc2.doh.
Hawaiʻi.gov/EA_EIS_Library/2004-02-23-
OA-FEA-Loft-Waikiki-Condominium.pdf.
30
Spatial adjacency
Lanai
Living Room Bedroom
Kitchen Bathroom
Unit Entrance
Elevator
Lobby Egress
Building Entrance Pool
Lawn Area

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
31
LOFT AT WAIKIKI
427 Launiu St, Honolulu, HI 96815
Ground Plan
3rd-6th Floor Plans

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
32
Ground Floor
Pool 3,093 Lobby 930
Lawn Terrace 2,778 Vertical Circulation 370
Fountain 1,140
Trash 107
2nd Floor
Lobby 210
Vertical Circulation 370
Total 580
3rd-6th Floor
Corridor 1,264
Kitchen 132 Bedroom 1 155 Vertical Circulation 370
Living Room 240 Bedroom 2 228
Master Bathroom 100
Bathroom 2 70
Corridor 124
Lanai 90
Total 756 9 6,804 Total 383 9 3,447 Total 370

Total SF
2nd Floor 580
3rd Floor 6,804 3,447 370
4th Floor 6,804 3,447 370
5th Floor 6,804 3,447 370
6th Floor 6,804 3,447 370
Total 7,118 27,216 13,788 3,360 51,482
Ratio 13.8% 52.9% 26.8% 6.5%
Table 3. Loft at Waikiki Spatial Distribution Calculation
33
400 KEAWE STREET
400 Keawe Street, Honolulu, HI 96813
Architect:
Castle & Cooke Hawai’i
Status:
Completed
Year:
2016
Size:
66,110 SF
No. Floor:
6
Commercial Shops
Building type:
Low-rise building
Usage:
Residential condominium,
shops
Castle & Cooke Homes Hawaiʻi,

Inc. Planned Development Permit
Application for 400 Keawe Street. 20 Feb.
2014, https://dbedt.Hawaiʻi.gov/hcda/
files/2014/03/B-1-PDP-Application-2014-
0220-Narrative.pdf.
“400 Keawe by Castle &

Cooke.” Kakaako Properties, http://
kakaakoproperties.com/400-keawe/.
34
Spatial adjacency
Lanai
Living Room Bedroom
Kitchen Bathroom
Unit Entrance Egress
Trash Elevator
Lobby
Building Entrance Retail

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
35
400 KEAWE STREET
400 Keawe Street, Honolulu, HI 96813
Ground Plan
4th-6th Floor Plans

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
36
Ground Floor
Trash 420 Lobby 533
Retail 9,680 Vertical Circulation 470
Utility 222 Corridors 312
2nd-6th Floor
Trash 111 1 BR A -Kit/Living/Bathroom 581 2 1,162 1 BR A -Bedroom 150 2 300 Circulation 2,264
Utility 343 1 BR B -Kit/Living/Bathroom 571 1 571 1 BR B -Bedroom 154 1 154 Vertical Circulation 470
1 BR res. unit -Kit/Living/Bathroom 459 1 459 1 BR res. unit -Bedroom 130 1 130
2 BR A -Kit/Living/Bathroom 776 2 1,552 2 BR A -Bedroom 312 2 624
2 BR B -Kit/Living/Bathroom 897 6 5,382 2 BR B -Bedroom 330 6 1,980
2 BR C -Kit/Living/Bathroom 876 1 876 2 BR C -Bedroom 350 1 350
2 BR res. unit -Kit/Living/Bathroom 724 2 1,448 2 BR res. unit -Bedroom 140 4 560
3 BR A -Kit/Living/Bathroom 958 2 1,916 3 BR A -Bedroom 437 2 874
3 BR B -Kit/Living/Bathroom 998 1 998 3 BR B -Bedroom 437 1 437
3 BR res. unit -Kit/Living/Bathroom 666 1 666 3 BR res. unit -Bedroom 350 1 350
Total 454 Total 15,030 Total 5,759 Total 2,734

Total SF
2nd Floor 454 15,030 5,759 2,734
3rd Floor 454 15,030 5,759 2,734
4th Floor 454 15,030 5,759 2,734
5th Floor 454 15,030 5,759 2,734
6th Floor 454 15,030 5,759 2,734
Total 12,592 75,150 28,795 14,985 131,522
Ratio 9.6% 57.1% 21.9% 11.4%
Table 4. 400 Keawe Street Spatial Distribution Calculation
37
HALE KEWALO
404 Piikoi Street, Honolulu, HI 96814
Architect:
Alakea Design Group
Status:
Completed
Year:
2019
Size:
22,540 SF
No. Floor:
11
Laundry, Community
Room with Kitchen,
Garden, Office,
Building type:
Low-rise building
Usage:
Rental Apartments, Shops
Shall the Authority Authorize the Interim ...

- Hawaiʻi. https://dbedt.Hawaiʻi.gov/hcda/
files/2016/10/Hale-Kewalo10.05.2016.
pdf.
“Affordable Living amidst a Vibrant

Neighborhood.” Hale Kewalo, https://
www.halekewalo.com/.
38
Spatial adjacency
Living Room Bedroom
Kitchen Bathroom
Unit Entrance
Laundry Elevator Egress
Trash Lobby
Retail
Building Entrance Rec Room
Office
Garden

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
39
HALE KEWALO
404 Piikoi Street, Honolulu, HI 96814
Ground Plan
3th-11th Floor Plans

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
40
Ground Floor
Trash 207 Vertical Circulation 700
Retail 2,881 Corridors 950
Utility 1,832
Recreation Rm 1,242
Office 168
Toilets 197
Storage 150
Garden/Lanai 830
Mail 165
2nd Floor PLan

Storage 120 3BR A -Kit/Living/Bathroom 444 1 444 3BR A -Bedroom 430 1 430 Vertical Circulation 700
3BR B -Kit/Living/Bathroom 578 1 578 3BR B -Bedroom 450 1 450 Lobby 654
Total 120 Total 1,022 880 Total 1,354
3rd-11th Floor Plan

Trash 124 1BR A -Kit/Living/Bathroom 390 3 1,170 1BR A -Bedroom 140 3 420 Vertical Circulation 700
Storage 83 2BR A -Kit/Living/Bathroom 429 7 3,003 2BR A -Bedroom 260 7 1,820 Lobby 260
Laundry 190 2BR B -Kit/Living/Bathroom 442 1 442 2BR B -Bedroom 270 1 270 Circulation 1,300
3BR C -Kit/Living/Bathroom 611 1 611 3BR C -Bedroom 460 1 460
3BR A -Kit/Living/Bathroom 464 1 464 3BR A -Bedroom 410 1 410
3BR B -Kit/Living/Bathroom 588 1 588 3BR B -Bedroom 440 1 440
Total 397 Total 6,278 3,820 Total 2,260

Total SF
2nd Floor 120 1,022 880 1,354
3rd Floor 397 6,278 3,820 2,260
4th Floor 397 6,278 3,820 2,260
5th Floor 397 6,278 3,820 2,260
6th Floor 397 6,278 3,820 2,260
7th Floor 397 6,278 3,820 2,260
8th Floor 397 6,278 3,820 2,260
9th Floor 397 6,278 3,820 2,260
10th Floor 397 6,278 3,820 2,260
11th Floor 397 6,278 3,820 2,260
Total 11,365 57,524 35,260 23,344 127,493
Ratio 8.9% 45.1% 27.7% 18.3%
Table 5. Hale Kewalo Spatial Distribution Calculation
41
HAWAIʻI HOUSING CASE STUDY MATRIX

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
Ola Ka ’Ilima Artspace

NAME Keauhou Lane
Lofts
502 Keawe St, 1025 Waimanu Street

LOCATION
Honolulu, HI 96813 Honolulu, HI, 96814
ARCHITECTS hi-arch-y llp Urban Works
NO. FLOORS 6 8
AREA 17,918 SF 33,194 SF
YEAR 2017 2019
LOCATION
OF VERTICAL
CIRCULATION
Lobby gallery,
Lounge, Outdoor decks,
courtyard, playground,
SHARED SPACES Bike room, Laundry
resident gardening,
Room, Courtyard
Event space
LIVING UNIT
SPATIAL
ORGANIZATION
Shared Spaces: 25.9% Shared Spaces: 24.4%

SPATIAL Common Spaces: 32.1% Common Spaces: 45.0%
DISTRIBUTION Private Spaces: 18.5% Private Spaces: 11.0%
Shared Circulation: 23.5% Shared Circulation: 19.6%
42
Loft at Waikiki 400 Keawe Street Hale Kewalo
427 Launiu St, 400 Keawe Street, 404 Piikoi Street,

Honolulu, HI 96815 Honolulu, HI 96813 Honolulu, HI 96814
Urban Loft
Castle & Cooke Hawai’i Alakea Design Group
Development, LLC
6 6 11
29,907 SF 66,110 SF 22,540 SF
2007 2016 2019
Laundry, Community
Courtyard, pool,
Commercial Shops Room with Kitchen,
sundeck, spa
Garden, Office
Shared Spaces: 13.8% Shared Spaces: 9.6% Shared Spaces: 8.9%

Common Spaces: 52.9% Common Spaces: 57.1% Common Spaces: 45.1%
Private Spaces: 26.8% Private Spaces: 21.9% Private Spaces: 27.7%
Shared Circulation: 6.5% Shared Circulation: 11.4% Shared Circulation: 18.3%
43
2.4 Conclusion
Shared Spaces Common Spaces Private Spaces Shared Circulation

Keauhou Lane 25.9% 32.1% 18.5% 23.5%
Ola Ka ’Ilima Artspace Lofts 24.4% 45.0% 10.9% 19.6%
Loft at Waikiki 13.8% 52.9% 26.8% 6.5%
400 Keawe 9.6% 57.1% 21.9% 11.4%
Hale Kewalo 8.9% 45.1% 27.7% 18.3%
Average 16.5% 46.4% 21.2% 15.9%
Table 6. Average Spatial Distribution Calculation of Hawaiian Family Households
From the quantitative analysis of the cases studies, we have:
• Building Shared spaces such as pools, gardens, and courtyards account for 16.5% of the
overall space
• Unit Common spaces like living rooms, kitchen, and bathrooms account for 46.4%
• Private spaces like bedrooms are 21.2%
• Shared circulation areas such as elevators, egress stairs, and hallways account for 15.9%
We can observe that common spaces account for nearly half of the overall area. Thus, it raises
the question of how can we increase the percentage of private spaces while still maintaining
comfortable living conditions? The shared living typology could provide some solutions by providing
more private areas through better space usage by using sharing spaces and amenities. It means
that we could improve the percentage of personal space by reducing overlapping common areas
and minimizing circulation. Thus, we need to look into:
• How much percentage of private space can we maximize?

• How much percentage of shared space can we provide to maintain comfortable living
conditions?
• How much percentage of common space and unused space can we minimize?
44
• What is the reasonable ratio to create a balance between privates spaces, shared spaces,
and common spaces?
Spatial distribution in housing in Honolulu
Keauhou Lane
25.9% 32.1% 18.5% 23.5%
Ola Ka ’Ilima Artspace Lofts
24.4% 45.0% 11.0% 19.6%
Loft at Waikiki
13.8% 52.9% 26.8% 6.5%
400 Keawe Street
9.6% 57.1% 21.9% 11.4%
Hale Kewalo
8.9% 45.1% 27.7% 18.3%
Average spatial distribution in Hawaiian family households
16.5% 46.4% 21.2% 15.9%
Figure 2.2. Spatial distribution of Hawaiian Family Households

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
45
CHAPTER 3:
SHARED LIVING AND CO-LIVING
46
3.1 Shared living
Billions of people are struggling to find adequate and affordable places to live. It has
become harder for people to find comfortable living places. Shared living and co-living spaces
have grown in popularity to provide affordable living options. Because of Hawaiʻi’s lack of supply
for building affordable housing, the shared living and co-living model could provide solutions for
this issue. This model could become an opportunity for cities to enable more affordable housing
through the better use of space and sharing living costs. It is based on the idea of designing
minimum standard living units for each household while considering several shared spaces for
them inside communities13.
The shared living model enables more affordable housing through better use of space
and sharing living costs. It is based on the idea of designing minimum standard living units for
each household while considering several shared spaces for them inside communities14. Each
resident owns their private living space and gains access to shared facilities. This model provides
opportunities for cities to enable more affordable housing when land space is limited.
Traditional Shared Living
Bedroom
Living
Unit
Shared
Space
Figure 3.1. Diagram showing the difference between Traditional housing and Shared
living housing. Source: Adapted from OpenDoor
13 Space10, and Urgent.Agency. Imagine: Exploring the Brave New World of Shared Living. no. 2, p.7
14 Ibid
47
In a shared living scenario, the residents typically have private bedrooms and spaces where
they can share amenities on the property. The definition of shared spaces can vary within each
community. Suppose that instead of each resident having their own kitchen, living room, dining
room, workspace, or laundry, these spaces could be shared within the building and community.
This enables a reduction in the amount of overlapping spaces and the possibility of increasing
private spaces. The private spaces could become “smaller, but they would be more efficient, and
residents would have access to more space and better facilities, for less money.”15
Shared living comes in many different typologies, from co-housing to co-living projects.
Both terms, co-housing and co-living, are often used as synonyms, however there is a small
difference in definition. According to the Cohousing Association, co-housing can be defined as
“an intentional community of private homes clustered around shared space”. On the other hand,
co-living is often used for single buildings that has shared amenities that are targeted at urban
residents. Co-living models are becoming more predominant in many cities due to different factors,
including increased urbanization, lack of affordable housing options, and interest in nomadic
lifestyles.16
3.2 Advantages
The increase of shared living and co-living communities over the years has been an
answer to the high living cost and the need for more affordable housing options. Communities that
are built based on the idea of shared living gain many advantages by sharing resources, costs,
times, and efficient use of space. This results in building more private spaces and still providing
comfortable living conditions in the form of shared spaces. This means that in a specific boundary,
using the shared living model, we could provide more private spaces by using the shared spaces
to minimize redundant spaces.
15 Space10, and Urgent.Agency. Imagine: Exploring the Brave New World of Shared Living. no. 2, p.14
16 Ibid p.48
48
Another aspect of this typology is that it provides social support inside the community by
allowing interactions between the residents. By promoting a mentality of sharing, shared spaces
can become points of social interaction between residents. These areas are interdependent spaces
for sociability and networking. The social aspect leads to the improvement of mental wellness in
the residents by allowing interactions and assists with healing stress and mental illness caused
by isolation. This alternative housing model encourages more sustainable residential models
regarding social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainability, a promising alternative
to conventional housing17.
3.3 Case Studies
Precedent studies about different shared living and co-living were selected to understand
the relationship between shared spaces, common spaces, private spaces, and circulation. The
range of projects presented in this section is located around the globe and varies in building size.
These projects are analyzed in terms of spatial distribution, spatial organization, space adjacency,
and programming.
Each of the precedent studies includes some facts, diagrams, and pictures. Floor plans
were also obtained to understand the case studies’ spatial distribution and adjacency. They are
also quantified to calculate the ratio between building shared spaces, unit common spaces,
private spaces, and circulation. Additionally, a program adjacency diagram indicates how the
spaces programs within the project are related.
At the end of this section, a precedent matrix shows all of the precedents to easily compare
and contrast each project side-by-side with one another.
17 Ataman, C., and I. Gursel Dino. Collective Residential Spaces in Sustainability Development: Turkish Housing Units within Co-
Living Understanding.
49
TREEHOUSE COLIVING APARTMENTS
Gangnam-gu, South Korea
Architect:
Bo-DAA
Status:
Completed
Year:
2018
Size:
51,774 sf
No. Floor:
8
Interior garden,
collaborative work areas,
relaxing lounge spots,
communal kitchen,
laundry and pet baths
Building type:
Mid-rise building
Usage:
Residential apartments
Abdel, Hana. “Treehouse Coliving

Apartments / Bo-Daa.” ArchDaily,
ArchDaily, 28 Jan. 2020, https://www.
a r c h d a i l y. c o m / 9 3 2 7 3 5 / t r e e h o u s e -
apartment-building-bo-daa.
50
Spatial adjacency
Bedroom
Kitchenette Bathroom Pet Wash Dog Park
Laundry
Unit Entrance
Co-Kitchen
Elevator/Egress Lobby Green Lounge Event Space
Restaurant
Co-Working Library
Building Entrance
6F

4F
Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
51
TREEHOUSE COLIVING APARTMENTS
Gangnam-gu, South Korea
Ground Plan
7th Floor Plan

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
52
Ground Floor
Dog Park 1,292 Stairs /Elevator 571
Petwash 143 Lobby 378
Laundy 131 Circulation 548
Print/Rental 44
MDF 133
Theather 194
Restaurant 1169
Lounge 610
Event Space 608
Kitchen 431
Restroom 79
Reception 84
Post Mail 100
2F Floor
Co-Working/Library 593 Stairs /Elevator 571
Print/Rental 44 Circulation 719
MDF 133
Total 770 Total 1,290
3F
Lounge 120 Private Kitchen/Bathroom 100 16 1,600 Bedroom 147 16 2,352 Stairs /Elevator 571
Circulation 1,338
4F
Private Kitchen/Bathroom 100 16 1,600 Bedroom 147 16 2,352 Stairs /Elevator 571
Circulation 1,458
Total 1,600 Total 2,352 Total 2,029
5F
Private Kitchen/Bathroom 90 16 1,440 Bedroom 112 16 1,792 Stairs /Elevator 571
Circulation 1,381
6F
Terrace 1,210 Private Kitchen/Bathroom 90 9 810 Bedroom 112 9 1,008 Stairs /Elevator 571
Lounge 187 Circulation 736
Total 1,397 Total 810 Total 1,008 Total 1,307
7F
Lounge 120 Private Kitchen/Bathroom 90 9 810 Bedroom 113 9 1,017 Stairs /Elevator 571
Circulation 728
Total 120 Total 810 Total 1,017 Total 1,299
8F
Private Kitchen 66 6 396 Bedroom 115 6 690 Stairs /Elevator 571
Private Bathroom 32 6 192 Circulation 796
Private Living Room 56 6 336
Total 924 Total 690 Total 1,367

Total SF
2nd Floor 770 1,290
3rd Floor 120 1,600 2,352 1,909
4th Floor 1,600 2,352 2,029
5th Floor 1,440 1,792 1,952
6th Floor 1,397 810 1,008 1,307
7th Floor 120 810 1,017 1,299
8th Floor 924 690 1,367
Total 7,425 7,184 9,211 12,650 36,470
Ratio 20.4% 19.7% 25.3% 34.7%
Table 7. Treehouse Coliving Apartments Spatial Distribution Calculation
53
ZEZE OSAKA COLIVING HOUSE
Osaka, Japan
Architect:
SWING
Status:
Completed
Year:
2018
Size:
1,571 sf
No. Floor:
3
Library, Lounge, Kitchen
Building type:
Low-Rise building
Usage:
Residential housing
Tapia, Daniel. “Zeze Osaka Coliving

House / Swing.” ArchDaily, ArchDaily,
14 May 2018, https://www.archdaily.
com/894437/zeze-osaka-swing.
54
Spatial adjacency
Bedrooms
Shared Bathroom Library
Kitchen Shared Living Elevator/Egress Shared Bathroom
Bedrooms
Building Entrance
1F
2F

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
55
ZEZE OSAKA COLIVING HOUSE
Osaka, Japan
Ground Plan

2nd Floor Plan Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
56
Ground Floor
Shared Bathroom 100 Bedroom 1 86 Corridor 70
Kitchen 113 Bedroom 2 81 Stairs 20
Shared Living 88 Bedroom 3 80 Entrance 20
Storage 17
Total 318 Total 247 Total 110
2nd Floor
Restrooms 35 Bedroom 1 90 Stairs 50
Library 63 Bedroom 2 93 Circulation 120
Bedroom 3 90
Bedroom 4 93
Bedroom 5 92
Total 98 Total 458 Total 170
Roof Floor
Shared Space 566

Total SF
Ground Floor 318 247 110
2nd Floor 98 458 170
Roof Floor 566
Total 982 0 705 280 1,967
Ratio 49.9% 0.0% 35.8% 14.2%
Table 8. Zeze Osaka Coliving House Spatial Distribution Calculation
57
VILLAGES AT BUHLER ACTIVE LIVING CENTER
650 South Railway Avenue Winkler Manitoba
Architect:
Harold Funk Architect Inc
Status:
Completed
Year:
2016
Size:
22,037sf
No. Floor:
9
Co-Kitchen, Co-Lounge,
Event Space, Cafe,
Beauty Care, Multipurpose
room, Gamer room, Office
Building type:
Mid-rise building
Usage:
Senior Housing,
Community Living
“The Villages.” Buhler Active Living

Centre, https://buhleralcentre.com/the-
villages/.
58
Spatial adjacency
Egress
Laundry
Dining
Bedroom
Kitchen
Lounge Unit Entrance Bathroom
Elevator Restroom
Office
Building Entrance Library

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
59
VILLAGES AT BUHLER ACTIVE LIVING CENTER
650 South Railway Avenue Winkler Manitoba
2nd Floor – The Villages – Community Living

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
60
TypicalFloor
Name SF Quantity Total SF Name SF Quantity Total SF Name SF Quantity Total SF Name SF
Lounge 388 2 776 Bathroom 49 24 1,176 Bedroom 136 24 3,264 Stairs 111
Dining 356 2 712 Stairs 105
Kitchen 198 2 396 Elevator 100
Laundry 47 2 94 Circulation 1,501
Restroom 47 2 94
Library 84 2 168
Office 58 2 116
Laundry 71 2 142
Storage 2 72 2 144
Restroom 2 91 1 91
Restroom 3 43 1 43
Storage 58 1 58
Storage 60 1 60
Janitor 56 1 56
Total 2,950 Total 1,176 Total 3,264 Total 1,817
Shared SpaceCommon Space

Private SpaceShared Circulation Total SF
TypicalFloor 2,950 1,176 3,264 1,817
Total 2,950 1,176 3,264 1,817 9,207
Ratio 32.0% 12.8% 35.5% 19.7%
Table 9. Villages at Buhler Active Living Center House Spatial Distribution Calculation
61
SURFBREAK HNL
1750 Kalakaua Ave 40th Floor, Honolulu, HI 96826
Architect:
n/a
Status:
Completed
Year:
1978
Size:
4,770 sf
No. Floor:
1
Laundry, Communal
Kitchen, Office, Lounge
Building type:
Low-Rise building
Usage:
Residential Housing
“Coliving Community: Surfbreak HNL:

Honolulu.” Surfbreak HNL, https://www.
surfbreakhnl.com/.
62
Source: https://www.surfbreakhnl.com/
Spatial adjacency
Bedroom Kitchen
Lounge
Elevator/Egress Laundry
Office
Building Entrance Bathroom

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
63
SURFBREAK HNL
1750 Kalakaua Ave 40th Floor, Honolulu, HI 96826
NIGHT DESK F DESK F DESK F DESK DESK DESK

STAND
TWIN BED
TWIN BED
DESK
DESK
KING BED TWIN BED TWIN BED TWIN BED TWIN BED
F
KING BED
CORNER CORNER
STOR. STOR.
F F
F
CORNER CORNER
STOR. STOR.
CORNER
STOR.
TWIN BED
F
DESK
DESK
TWIN BED SHOWER SHOWER
DESK
F CORNER
STOR.
TWIN BED
ELEVATORS ELEVATORS ELEVATORS TWIN BED
DESK
F
DESK
CORNER
DESK
STOR.
TWIN BED
TWIN BED
CORNER
STOR.
F CORNER
STOR.
STAIRS
CORNER F
STOR.
TWIN BED
DESK TWIN BED
DESK W D SHOWER SHOWER
DESK
TWIN BED
STORAGE
F CORNER
STOR.
DESK
F
STORAGE
QUEEN BED
CORNER CORNER CORNER CORNER

STOR. STOR. STOR. STOR.
F F F F
DESK
DESK
DESK
NIGHT
STAND
SOFA
QUEEN BED
QUEEN BED QUEEN BED KING BED
DESK
Typical Floor Plan

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
64
Floor
Living 216 Bedroom 1 65 Corridor/Lobby 882
Kitchen 98 Bedroom 2 65 Stairs 170
Dining 346 Bedroom 3 72 Elevator 176
Laundry 35 Bedroom 4 64
Restroom 1 42 Bedroom 7 79
Office 1 71 Bedroom 8 70
Restroom 2 30 Bedroom 13 131
Bedroom 17 66
Bedroom 18 97
Bedroom 19 190
Bedroom 20 115
Bedroom 21 107
Bedroom 22 114

Total SF
Floor 1,532 1,920 1,228
Total 1,532 0 1,920 1,228 4,680
Ratio 32.7% 0.0% 41.0% 26.2%
Table 10. Surfbreak HNL House Spatial Distribution Calculation
65
CO-DWELL
Architect:
R+D Studio at KTGY
Architecture + Planning
Status:
Conceptual
Year:
2015
Size:
18,836 sf
No. Floor:
4
Laundry, Courtyard,
Communal Kitchen,
Office, Lounge
Building type:
Low-Rise building
Usage:
Residential Housing,
Community Center
“Co-Living Design: Housing: Co-Dwell:

Architects: KTGY: Architecture: Branding:
Interiors: Planning.” KTGY, 4 Feb. 2022,
https://ktgy.com/work/co-dwell/.
66
Spatial adjacency
Bathroom
Egress Unit Entrance Kitchen
Co-Lounge Lounge
Co-Kitchen Bedroom
Co-Dining
Restroom Elevator/Egress
Office
Library Building Entrance
2F

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
67
CO-DWELL
1st Floor Plan

Unit Common Spaces
2nd-4th Floor Plan
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
68
Ground Floor
Leasing Office 149 Stairs 1 177
Parcel Room 141 Stairs 2 177
Lounge 333 Elevator+lobby 173
Mail Room 361 Circulation 997
Restroom 1 102
Restroom 2 93
Studio 913
Courtyard Lounge 832
Outdoor Dining 741
Comunity Kit +Dining 1086
Community Restrooms 357
Bike Parking 533
Trash Room 263
Laundry 858
Storage 77
2F-4F
Office 1 145 Living Room+ Kitchen 1 280 2 560 Bedroom 1 118 2 236 Stairs 1 177
Office 2 133 Bathroom 1 70 2 140 Bedroom 2 118 2 236 Stairs 2 177
Bathroom 2 75 2 150 Bedroom 3 118 2 236 Elevator+lobby 155
Storage 1 30 2 60 Bedroom 4 130 2 260 Circulation 1,526
Living Room+ Kitchen 2 297 2 594 Bedroom 5 131 2 262
Bathroom 3 77 2 154 Bedroom 6 146 2 292
Bathroom 4 77 2 154 Bedroom 7 146 2 292
Storage 2 10 4 40 Bedroom 8 131 2 262
Comon Circulation 225 2 450
Comon Circulation 72 4 288

Total SF
2nd Floor 278 2,590 2,076 2,035
3rd Floor 278 2,590 2,076 2,035
4th Floor 278 2,590 2,076 2,035
Total 7,673 7,770 6,228 7,629 29,300
Ratio 26.2% 26.5% 21.3% 26.0%
Table 11. Co-Dwell Spatial Distribution Calculation
69
ROAM COLIVING IN BALI
Ubud, Indonesia
Architect:
Alexis Dornier
Status:
Completed
Year:
2015
Size:
18,836 sf
No. Floor:
3
deck space, cafe, bar,
restaurant, lounge and
central pool
Building type:
Low-Rise building
Usage:
Residential Housing,
Community Center
“Roam Coliving in Balii / Alexis Dornier.”

ArchDaily, ArchDaily, 25 May 2016,
https://www.archdaily.com/787696/roam-
alexis-dornier.
70
Spatial adjacency
Sun Deck
Dining
Kitchen
Egress Cafe Bedroom
Yoga Bathroom
Building Entrance Pool Unit Entrance

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
71
ROAM COLIVING IN BALI
Ubud, Indonesia
1st Floor Plan
2nd Floor Plan

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
72
1F-2F
Pool 783 Private Bathroom 96 4 384 Bedroom 1 219 4 876 Stairs 1 82
Lobby 288 Private Courtyard 96 4 384 Stairs 2 87
Outdoor Garden 1,163 Private Bathroom 2 46 8 368 Circulation 3,082
Lounge 240 Private Courtyard 2 109 4 436 Bedroom 2 180 8 1,440
Private Courtyard 3 48 4 192
Total 2,474 Total 1,764 Total 2,316 Total 3,251
3Floor
Yoga 1,370 Stairs 1 52
Lounge/Dining 501 Stairs 2 123
Kitchen/Cafe 1,180 Stairs 3 81
Amphitheather 582 Circulation 272
Sun Deck 723
Total 4,356 Total 528

Total SF
Ground Floor 2,474 1,764 2,316 3,251
2nd Floor 2,474 1,764 2,316 3,251
3rd Floor 4,356 528
Total 9,304 3,528 4,632 7,030 24,494
Ratio 38.0% 14.4% 18.9% 28.7%
Table 12. Roam Coliving in Bali Spatial Distribution Calculation
73
SHARED LIVING AND CO-LIVING CASE STUDIES MATRIX

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
Treehouse Coliving Zeze Osaka Villages at Buhler

NAME
Apartments Coliving House Active Living Center
Gangnam-gu,
LOCATION Osaka, Japan Winkler Manitoba
South Korea
Harold Funk
ARCHITECTS Bo-DAA SWING
Architect Inc.
NO. FLOORS 51,774 sf 1,571 sf 22,037sf
AREA 51,774 sf 1,571 sf 22,037sf
YEAR 2018 2018 2016
Pet Park, Pet Wash,

Laundry, Lounge, Library, Bathroom, Lounge, Bathroom,
SHARED
Event Space, Living Room, Kitchen, Media
SPACES
Kitchen, Restaurant Kitchen Room
Theater
LOCATION
OF VERTICAL
CIRCULATION
LIVING UNIT
SPATIAL
ORGANIZATION

SPATIAL Common Spaces: 19.7% Common Spaces: 0.00% Common Spaces: 12.8%
DISTRIBUTION Private Spaces: 25.3% Private Spaces: 35.8% Private Spaces: 35.5%
74
Roam Coliving in
Surfbreak HNL CO-DWELL
Bali
Honolulu, Oʻahu n/a Ubud, Indonesia
R+D Studio at KTGY

n/a Alexis Dornier
Architecture + Planning
4,770 sf 18,836 sf 18,836sf
4,770 sf 18,836 sf 18,836sf
1978 2015 2015
Lounge, Kitchen,
Laundry, Communal Living Room,
Bar, Cafe,
Kitchen, Office, Kitchen, Dining
Washroom, Yoga
Lounge, Bathroom Room
Room

Common Spaces: 0.00% Common Spaces: 26.5% Common Spaces: 14.4%
Private Spaces: 41.0% Private Spaces: 21.3% Private Spaces: 18.9%
75
3.3 Conclusion
Shared Space Common Space Private Space Shared Circulation

Treehouse Coliving Apartments 20.4% 19.7% 25.3% 34.7%
Zeze Osaka Coliving House 49.9% 0.0% 35.8% 14.2%
Villages at Buhler Active Living Center 32.0% 12.8% 35.5% 19.7%
SurfBreak HNL 32.7% 0.0% 41.0% 26.2%
Co-Dwell 26.2% 26.5% 21.3% 26.0%
Roam Coliving in Balii 38.0% 14.4% 18.9% 28.7%
Average 33.2% 12.2% 29.6% 24.9%
Table 13. Average Spatial Distribution Calculation of Shared Living
From the quantitative analysis of the shared living cases studies, we have:
• Building Shared spaces such as lounge areas, laundries, co-kitchen, courtyards, etc.
account for 33.2% of the overall space
From these results, if we compare with the average ratio of Hawaiian households from
the previous chapter. The most notable difference is a reduction of 34.2% of common spaces.
The spaces were distributed between the shared spaces and private spaces, which resulted in
an increase of 16.7% in shared spaces and 8.4% in private spaces. A reduction of 9% in shared
circulation is also observed, which it may be caused by shared spaces acting also as circulation.
76
Spatial distribution in Co-living and Shared living
Treehouse Coliving Apartments
20.4% 19.7% 25.3% 34.7%
Zeze Osaka Coliving House
49.9% 35.8% 14.2%
Villages at Buhler Active Living Center
32.0% 12.8% 35.5% 19.7%
Surfbreak HNL
32.7% 41.0% 26.2%
Co-Dwell
26.2% 26.5% 21.3% 26.0%
Roam Coliving in Balii
38.0% 14.4% 18.9% 28.7%
Average spatial distribution Shared Living Households
33.2% 12.2% 29.6% 24.9%
16.5% 46.4% 21.2% 15.9%
Figure 3.2. Spatial distribution of Shared Living

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
77
CHAPTER 4:
DESIGN GUIDELINES
78
4.1 Design Guidelines
The proposed design guidelines were developed based on all the case studies previously
discussed. They seek to help designers develop a solid design direction with a focus on shared
space design. The design guidelines can be organized into four phases:
Phase 1: Defining the boundary

• The first step is to understand the boundary of the project. This can be defined accordingly
to the site constraints or building footprint.
Phase 2: Defining Shared Spaces
• After defining the boundary of the projects, we start to determine the location of the space
with the most constraint, in this case, the shared vertical circulation cores. Eight different
circulation spatial layouts were designed according to the common patterns analyzed from
the previous case studies. Figure 4.2 shows a diagram of the location of the stairs. They
can be selected according to the site context and entrance points.
• After defining the main vertical circulation core, the place of the shared spaces is next.
Figure 4.3 shows the different locations that shared spaces can be in a given boundary.
These were chosen accordingly to the patterns analyzed from the case studies. The
spaces can be located according to:
1. Access to natural daylighting and natural ventilation

2. Access to Views
3. According to program needs and function
79
Phase 1: Boundary Define the boundary of the project
Define loca�on of circula�on core

(stairs and elevators)
Define loca�on of shared spaces
Expand shared spaces to meet

Phase 2: Shared Spaces
required percetange
Assign voids spaces on top of shared

spaces for natural ligh�ng and
ven�la�on
Define shared circula�on within shared

spaces
Assign common spaces and private

spaces around shared space or
circula�on
Phase 3: Living Spaces
Define void spaces and shared spaces

within common space or private space
for natural ligh�ng and ven�la�on
Adjust layout to meet required ra�o

between spaces
Phase 4: Adjus�ng
Final Layout
Figure 4.1. Design rules phases. Source: Author
80
Type A Type B
Type C Type D
Type E Type F
Type G Type H
Figure 4.2. Location of Vertical Circulation Core types

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
81
Type A Type B
Type C Type D
Type E Type F
Type G Type H
Type I

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Figure 4.3. Location of Shared Spaces types Shared Circulation
82
• After assigning the location of shared spaces, expanding those shared spaces to meet
a target goal is needed. According to the analysis obtained from the shared living case
studies, the minimum percentage of shared space is 20.4%, and the maximum is 49.9%.
Also, the average is 33.2% which can be the perfect target goal to provide a balanced
relationship between private spaces and shared spaces. Figure 4.4 shows the different
scenarios of how much space it takes to reach a percentage amount of shared area.
30% of Shared Space 40% of Shared Space

Unit Common Spaces
50% of Shared Space 60% of Shared Space Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
Figure 4.4. Expanding shared spaces
• After expanding the shared spaces and getting the desired percentage, assigning the
voids in the shared spaces is next. The function of these voids is to allow the shared
spaces to have access to natural daylighting and natural ventilation. These will enable
to be comfortable areas where people can gather and socialize. Figure 4. shows the
different types of voids that can be developed.
83
Inner Voids
Outer Voids

Unit Common Spaces
Corner Voids Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
Figure 4.5. Types of voids in shared spaces
• After assigning voids spaces, adding the shared circulation inside the shared spaces
follows. This shared circulation connects both vertical circulation cores and shared
spaces. Aside from connecting shared spaces, it also provides a means of escape in
an emergency. According to the International Building Code, it is required to provide a
continuous and unobstructed path of travel from any point in a building to a public way.
Figure 4.6 shows an example of applying the shared circulation.
84
Connecting Egress Connecting Shared Spaces

Figure 4.6. Shared Circulation purpose
Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
Phase 3: Defining the living units
• Following the shared spaces, assigning the living units comes next. The different types
of living units can be defined as shown in Figure 4.7. The living units are composed of
private spaces and common spaces. There are 1 Bedroom, 2 Bedrooms, 3 Bedrooms,
and 4 Bedrooms types. These units can allow us to create new types of units by combining
multiples units and creating shared spaces. These shared spaces can increase the
percentage of private spaces by minimizing common areas and creating new shared
spaces. These shared and private spaces need to be organized regarding entry points,
access to natural ventilation and lighting, and views. Figure 4.8 shows the possibilities of
combining common spaces. The living spaces should be assigned adjacent to the shared
spaces or shared circulation.
85
1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR
Figure 4.7. Types of living units, private spaces and common spaces
Shared space between different users Shared space between different users and 1 household Shared space between multiple households
Views/Lighting/Ventilation
Views/Lighting/Ventilation
Views/Lighting/Ventilation Household Household 1 Household 2
User 1
User 1 User 3 User 2
User 2 User 4
User 3
Entry
User 4
Entry
Road
Household 3 Household 4
Entry
Road
Road
Figure 4.8. Possibilities of sharing

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
86
• After defining the private and common spaces, we can start assigning voids spaces that
allow for natural ventilation and daylight inside.
Phase 4: Adjusting ratios

• After obtaining a floor plan layout, calculate the spaces’ ratio next, and adjust accordingly
to meet the target goal. Adjusting it provides a starting point where we can develop projects
that use shared living as an organizational tool. A high percentage of private spaces can be
achieved by maximizing shared spaces and minimizing unused or overlapping common
areas and circulation.
Figure 4.9 shows four different floor plan layouts that use the shared living design guidelines.
These examples follow the guidelines step-by-step and provide different spatial distributions of
shared, common, private, and circulation spaces.
87
DEFINE LOCATION OF DEFINE LOCATION OF EXPAND SHARED ASSIGN VOIDS ON DEFINE SHAR
STAIRS/ELEVATORS SHARED SPACES SPACES TO MEET TOP OF SHARED CIRCULATION
NEEDED % SPACES SHARED SPAC
EXAMPLE 1
According to views 40% for shared spaces
EXAMPLE 2
Close to circulation 45% for shared spaces
EXAMPLE 3
Allow for natural 50% for shared spaces

ventilation and daylighting
EXAMPLE 4
To connect adjacency 40% for shared spaces
Figure 4.9 Different examples using the design guidelines
88
ASSIGN VOIDS ON DEFINE SHARED ADD LIVING UNITS DEFINE VOIDS FINAL LAYOUT
TOP OF SHARED CIRCULATION WITHIN AROUND SHARED SPACES WITHIN
SPACES SHARED SPACES SPACES OR LIVING UNITS
CIRCULATION
42.9% shared spaces

16.4% shared circulation
7.1 common spaces
33.6% private spaces
37.7% shared spaces

18.0% common spaces
34% private spaces
40.4% shared spaces

17.6% common spaces
31.3% shared spaces

15.7% common spaces

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
89
CHAPTER 5:
APPLYING DESIGN GUIDELINES
90
5.1 Site Location
The University of Hawai‘i, West O‘ahu Campus

The University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu (UHWO) campus presents a unique opportunity to
implement the speculative design of housing prototypes that uses the shared design guidelines.
The UHWO established a conceptual long-range development plan (LRDP) that provides a
framework for future development. The vision for the UHWO Campus is focused on creating
a sustainable campus community that is welcoming and accessible to students, faculty, staff,
visitors, and the community.
In recent years since the opening of the UHWO campus, small developments have
taken place within the University District Lands. However, the lands adjacent to the University
District Lands have seen major development from other state entities like the Department of
Hawaiʻian Homelands (DHHL) and the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) with
the construction of the rail guideway and transit stations. The development from the previous two
entities, partnered with the University’s obligation to provide affordable housing, makes a case for
proposing a scenario where the UHWO develops mid-rise affordable housing.
Hoʻopili Development
UHWO Campus Site Location
DHHL East Kapolei
Villages of Kapolei DHHL, Kānehili Neighborhood
Figure 5.1. Google Earth image of University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu campus and location of site
91
The chosen site was the University of Hawaiʻi West Oʻahu, located in Kapolei, Oʻahu. The
land is still currently in development, and the vision of this is to create a vibrant mixed neighborhood.
According to the LRDP 2006, the UHWO is envisioned as having a mix of land uses. The chosen
site will be located in a high-density residential parcel as shown in Figure 5.2. The design intent
will address housing needs for a range of different types of household incomes. They will cater to
different types of users such as university students, faculty staff as well as locals, and the visitor
population.
SITE LOCATION
Figure 5.2. University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu Master Plan, 2018. Image Source: University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu.
92
5.2 Applying design guidelines into the site
This chapter will showcase two different prototypes that use the shared living design
guidelines on the chosen site. Each prototype went through the design guidelines using different
typologies depending on the user. The methodology starts with highlighting the design goals and
program needs together with each prototype purpose.
In Prototype 1, the design goal is to develop the project from the initial phase. The
prototype will go over the phases of defining the building boundary, defining shared spaces and
living units, and calculating and adjusting the ratio of spaces. The building will look into providing
living conditions for multifamilies, where single people and families live together.
In Prototype 2, the main goal is to use the design guidelines using massing that is
predefined. The massing can be placeholders from conceptual plans. In this case, UHWO has
many placeholders massings that can be used to apply the design guidelines. Massing 2 will
look into using a U form massing where the target focus is mostly students. In this scenario, the
emphasis on shared spaces will be prioritized to see how much private spaces can be maximized.
Ke
on
e'a
e
Tra
ns
it
Sta
t ion
Parking
Ku
al
Parking B
ad
aka
Ro
i Pa
1
rk w
ng
ssi
Ma
ay
G Academy for Creative Media

Ro
ad
1
PE
A
Y
OT
OT
PR
Parking
E2
YP
OT
Ro
OT
ad
A Health Sciences PR
D
Great Lawn
Figure C5.3.
CampusDesign
Center Project Site Plan. Source: Author
B Library
93
D Classroom
5.3 Prototype #1
The first prototype focuses on a multifamily housing scenario, where single people and
families live together. The first step is to calculate the project boundary, so to calculate the building
footprint and its limitations. Figure 5.4 shows the maximum building envelope for this project
scenario.
The information to calculate the maximum building envelope area is as follows (from From East
Kapolei Neighborhood TOD Plan July 2020 & LUO 21-9.100-8):
• Zoning: High Density Residential or Mixed-Use Residential and Commercial

• FAR: 0.9-2.5 . or 3.5 with open space bonus
• Building Height: 120FT (Within 1/4 miles radius)
: 90FT (Within 1/2 miles radius)
• Min From Setback All streets: 5ft
• Max From Key Street: 10ft
• Setback non-key street: 10ft
• Height setback: After 40ft in height, 1/2 slope height setback
FAR 1 FAR 2 FAR 3.5
Figure 5.4. Calculating Maximum Building Envelope and FAR. Source: Author
94
1. After getting the boundary for the project, the vertical circulation is assigned. The location
of the elevators and stairs are chosen according to the site location. In this scenario, the
primary public access comes from the east side (Kualakai Parkway). In comparison, the
north (Road B) and south side provide opportunities for public egress discharge in case
of emergency.
2. Next is to assign the location of the shared spaces. On the ground floor, the shared spaces’
location promotes the connection between areas. On the typical floor plan, the place of the
shared spaces tries to maximize the prevailing winds, views, and natural lighting.
3. Following the shared spaces, the location of the voids is chosen. In this case, a center
hole allows for natural lighting and ventilation to all the units. In addition, the ground floor
provides an opportunity for shared space such as an internal courtyard that promotes
social interactions and central amenities such as pools or gardens.
4. Afterward, we start to assign the shared circulation. The shared circulation connects the
shared spaces and vertical cores, and it provides a continuous path of travel in case of
emergencies.
5. After assigning all the shared areas, we add the living modules. These modules are the
private and common spaces. The location of these spaces is adjacent to the shared spaces
or the circulation. In addition to that, the private spaces should have access to views,
natural lighting and natural ventilation since it is required according to the International
Building Code.
6. Finally, after calculating and adjusting the spatial distribution of spaces, we can develop
the prototype using the floor plan layout as a starting point.
95
GROUND FLOOR TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
Entry
STEP 1:
Define location
of stairs/elevators
STEP 2:
Define location and
area % of shared spaces
STEP 3:
Assign voids on
top of shared spaces
Figure 5.5. Applying design guidelines to prototype no.1
96
GROUND FLOOR TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Unit Common Spaces
Private Spaces
Shared Circulation
STEP 4:
Define shared circulation
within shared spaces
STEP 5:
Define living modules
and voids
35.6% shared spaces

34.6% common spaces
STEP6:
Final layout
97
Prototype #1 - Ground Floor Plan
Figure 5.6. Prototype #1 - Ground Floor Plan
98
Prototype #1 - Typical Floor Plan
Departm
Circula
Commo
Private
Shared
Level 2
1/32" = 1'-0"
Figure 5.7. Prototype #1 - Typical Floor Plan
99
Level 8
70' - 0"
Level 7
60' - 0"
Level 6
50' - 0"
Level 5
40' - 0"
Level 4
30' - 0"
Level 3
20' - 0"
Level 2
10' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
East
1
3/64" = 1'-0"
Level 8
70' - 0"
Level 7
60' - 0"
Level 6
50' - 0"
Level 5
40' - 0"
Level 4
30' - 0"
Level 3
20' - 0"
Level 2
10' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
West
2
3/64" = 1'-0"
Level 8
70' - 0"
Level 7
60' - 0"
Level 6
50' - 0"
Level 5
40' - 0"
Level 4
30' - 0"
Level 3
20' - 0"
Level 2
10' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
North
1
3/64" = 1'-0"
Level 8
70' - 0"
Level 7
60' - 0"
Level 6
50' - 0"
Level 5
40' - 0"
Level 4
30' - 0"
Level 3
20' - 0"
Level 2
10' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
South
2
3/64" = 1'-0"
Figure 5.8. Prototype #1- Elevations
100
5.4 Conclusion - Prototype #1
After developing the prototype and calculating the spatial distribution of the shared,
common, private, and circulation spaces, we have:
• Building Shared spaces such as community kitchens, laundries, communal lounges, etc.
From these results, if we compare the average ratio of the shared living case studies from
the previous chapter, the most notable difference is an increase of 5% in private spaces. This
increase was possible by reducing unused spaces in circulation areas, a decrease of 8.8%. It
could be caused by shared spaces also acting as circulation.
16.5% 46.4% 21.2% 15.9%
33.2% 12.2% 29.6% 24.9%
Massing #1: Applying design guidelines on site
35.6% 13.7% 34.6% 16.1%
Figure 5.9. Spatial distribution comparison between prototype #1, shared living and Hawaiian households
101
Figure 5.10. Renderings showing from NE (top), East (middle), and West (bottom)
102
Figure 5.11 Renderings showing from North (top), and Internal Courtyard (bottom)
103
5.5 Prototype #2
The second prototype focuses on a student housing scenario. Shared spaces are given
the maximum priority while trying to minimize common spaces. In this scenario, the UHWO long-
term development plan uses placeholder massings in its conceptual master plan. The second
prototype will use one of these placeholders, the U shape one, and use the design guidelines
to develop the prototype. If the spatial distribution goal is achieved, this means that the design
guidelines could be applied in any given situation.
The design procedure is similar to prototype #1; the main difference is that we are given the
maximum building envelope.
1. Starting with the vertical circulation, the location of the elevators and stairs are located
next to the courtyard, which is the main entry point.
2. Next are the shared spaces. It starts by assigning the location, expanding it to reach the
desired percentage, and finally, adding the voids that allow for favorable living conditions.
The shared spaces’ placement is according to the site conditions, which we look into
maximizing the prevailing winds, views, and natural lighting.
3. Afterward, we start to assign the shared circulation that connects both shared spaces and
vertical circulation by using a continuous path of travel for cases of emergencies.
4. After assigning all the shared areas, we add the living modules. These modules are private
spaces. The location of these spaces is adjacent to the shared spaces or the circulation.
In addition to that, the private spaces should have access to views, natural lighting and
ventilation.
104
5. Finally, after calculating and adjusting the spatial distribution of spaces, we can develop
the prototype using the floor plan layout as a starting point.shared spaces and vertical
cores, and it provides a continuous path of travel in case of emergencies.
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN
Entry
STEP 1: STEP 4:
Define location Define shared circulation
of stairs/elevators within shared spaces
STEP 2: STEP 5:
Define location and Define living modules
area % of shared spaces and voids
56.4% shared spaces

0% common spaces
STEP 3:
Assign voids on STEP6:
top of shared spaces Final layout
Figure 5.12. Applying design guidelines into prototype #2
105
-
Prototype #2 - Typical Floor Plan
Depart
Circu
Priva
Shar
Figure 5.13. Prototype #2 - Typical Floor Plan
106
Level 7
60' - 0"
Level 6
50' - 0"
Level 5
40' - 0"
Level 4
30' - 0"
Level 3
20' - 0"
Level 2
10' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
North
1
3/64" = 1'-0"
Level 7
60' - 0"
Level 6
50' - 0"
Level 5
40' - 0"
Level 4
30' - 0"
Level 3
20' - 0"
Level 2
10' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
South
2
3/64" = 1'-0"
Level 7
60' - 0"
Level 6
50' - 0"
Level 5
40' - 0"
Level 4
30' - 0"
Level 3
20' - 0"
Level 2
10' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
East
1
3/64" = 1'-0"
Level 7
60' - 0"
Level 6
50' - 0"
Level 5
40' - 0"
Level 4
30' - 0"
Level 3
20' - 0"
Level 2
10' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
West
2
3/64" = 1'-0"
Figure 5.14. Prototype #2 - Elevations
107
5.6 Conclusion - Prototype #2
After developing the second prototype and calculating the spatial distribution of the shared,
common, private, and circulation spaces, we have:
1. Building Shared spaces such as community kitchens, laundries, communal lounges, etc.
2. Private spaces like bedrooms are 35.6%
3. Shared circulation areas such as elevators, egress stairs, and hallways account for 8.1%
From these results, if we compare the average ratio of the shared living case studies from
the previous chapter, the most notable difference is an increase of 6% in private spaces. This
increase was possible by reducing unused spaces in circulation and common areas.
16.5% 46.4% 21.2% 15.9%
33.2% 12.2% 29.6% 24.9%
Massing #1: Applying design guidelines on site
35.6% 13.7% 34.6% 16.1%
Massing #2: Applying design guidelines on existing conceptual massing
56.4% 35.6% 8.1%
Figure 5.15. Spatial distribution comparison between prototype #2, prototype #1, shared living and Hawaiian households
108
Figure 5.16. Renderings showing from East (top), North (middle), and SE (bottom)
109
CHAPTER 6:
CONCLUSION
110
6.1 Conclusion
As the demand for housing in Hawaiʻi continues to grow, the lack of housing supply leads
to an increase in rent prices, overcrowding of living conditions, and a reduction in tenants’ quality
of life. Shared living and co-living models tackle some of these issues by allowing more affordable
housing through the better use of space and amenities and sharing living costs.
The research looks to develop an architectural design prototype of a new mid-rise

affordable housing for Hawaiʻi using the values and qualities of the shared living and co-living
model to tackle housing demand, living conditions, and affordability issues. This research aims
to provide design guidelines that use shared spaces as the primary organizational tool. Shared
spaces can offer more private spaces by minimizing redundant and overlapping spaces.
Based upon the analysis of Hawaiian family households and shared living or co-living
precedent studies, quantitative data were obtained to understand the spatial distribution between
the shared, common, private, and circulation spaces. It allows for developing a minimum spatial
ratio that provides an optimal balance between the spaces.
Two design prototypes were developed using the shared living design guidelines.
The prototypes are located in UHWO, where the vision is to create a sustainable and vibrant
community. The prototypes use the guidelines to develop optimal spatial floor plans where there
was an increase of about 5% of private spaces compared to the average of the shared living case
studies.
111
6.2 Future Work
With the development of the shared design guidelines, potential future topics can be taken
on. This research can serve as a starting point in developing a design grammar that can be
translated into a script for 3D Rhinoceros Grasshopper. The script will provide numerous potential
floor plan layouts according to the design guidelines. In addition, it will help fasten the process of
generating different iterations. As new iterations are being developed, we can calculate the spatial
distribution, compare them, and select the one with the highest private space percentage or the
one with the most balanced ratio.
Figure 6.1. Aerial view render of prototype #1 and prototype #2
112
References
“400 Keawe by Castle & Cooke.” Kakaako Properties, http://kakaakoproperties.

com/400-keawe/.
“A Bill for an Act S.B. No. 2561.” SB2561 CD1.DOC, https://www.capitol.Hawaiʻi.gov/

session2016/bills/SB2561_CD1_.HTM.
Abdel, Hana. “Treehouse Coliving Apartments / Bo-Daa.” ArchDaily, ArchDaily, 28 Jan.

2020, https://www.archdaily.com/932735/treehouse-apartment-building-bo-daa.
“Affordable Living amidst a Vibrant Neighborhood.” Hale Kewalo, https://www.

halekewalo.com/.
Ataman, C., and I. Gursel Dino. Collective Residential Spaces in Sustainability

Development: Turkish Housing Units within Co-Living Understanding.
Castle & Cooke Homes Hawaiʻi, Inc. Planned Development Permit Application
for 400 Keawe Street. 20 Feb. 2014, https://dbedt.Hawaiʻi.gov/hcda/files/2014/03/B-1-PDP-
Application-2014-0220-Narrative.pdf.
“Co-Living Design: Housing: Co-Dwell: Architects: KTGY: Architecture: Branding:

Interiors: Planning.” KTGY, 4 Feb. 2022, https://ktgy.com/work/co-dwell/.
“Coliving Community: Surfbreak HNL: Honolulu.” Surfbreak HNL, https://www.

surfbreakhnl.com/.
Hawaiʻi Housing Plannning Study, 2019. SMS Research & Marketing Services,
Inc., Dec. 2019, https://dbedt.Hawaiʻi.gov/hhfdc/files/2020/01/FINAL-State_Hawaiʻi-Housing-
Planning-Study.pdf. Page 25
Housing Oahu: Affordable Housing Strategy. 8 Sept. 2015, https://www.honolulu.gov/rep/

site/dpptod/dpptod_docs2/Affordable_Housing_Strategy_and_appendix.pdf, Page 7
“Keauhou Lane.” Architect, 19 Sept. 2018, https://www.architectmagazine.com/project-

gallery/keauhou-lane_1.
“Keauhou Lane.” Keauhou Lane, https://www.keauhoulane.com/.
Keauhou Lane. 18 Dec. 2013, https://dbedt.Hawaiʻi.gov/hcda/files/2014/02/combined-

drawing-sheets.pdf.
Loft at Waikiki. Final Environmental Assessment. Wilson Okamoto Corporation,

Feb. 2004, http://oeqc2.doh.Hawaiʻi.gov/EA_EIS_Library/2004-02-23-OA-FEA-Loft-Waikiki-
Condominium.pdf.
113
“Loft at Waikiki, Hawaiʻi: Hi pro Realty: United States.” Hiprorealtyllc, https://www.
hiprorealty.com/-loft-at-waikiki.
“Ola Ka ‘Ilima Artspace Lofts.” OLA KA ’ILIMA ARTSPACE LOFTS, Artspace Projects,
Inc., 2018, https://www.artspace.org/Hawaiʻi.
Real Estate And Living Hawaiʻi. “Cost of Living in Hawaiʻi - 2021.” Oahu Real Estate,
Real Estate And Living Hawaiʻi, 17 Oct. 2021, https://realHawaiʻi.co/blog/cost-of-living-
Hawaiʻi#:~:text=Renting%20in%20Hawaiʻi%20is%20much,per%20month%20for%20one%20
person.
“Roam Coliving in Balii / Alexis Dornier.” ArchDaily, ArchDaily, 25 May 2016, https://www.
archdaily.com/787696/roam-alexis-dornier.
Shall the Authority Authorize the Interim ... - Hawaiʻi. https://dbedt.Hawaiʻi.gov/hcda/

files/2016/10/Hale-Kewalo10.05.2016.pdf.
Space10, and Urgent.Agency. Imagine: Exploring the Brave New World of Shared
Living. no. 2,
P.7
Space10, and Urgent.Agency. Imagine: Exploring the Brave New World of Shared
Living. no. 2, p.14
Tapia, Daniel. “Zeze Osaka Coliving House / Swing.” ArchDaily, ArchDaily, 14 May 2018,
https://www.archdaily.com/894437/zeze-osaka-swing.
“The Villages.” Buhler Active Living Centre, https://buhleralcentre.com/the-villages/.
114
Mahalo!
Thank you!
115

LioCan Hawii 0085A 11335

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LioCan Hawii 0085A 11335

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SHARED LIVING DESIGN FOR A

MID-RISE HOUSING IN OʻAHU

A DARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

Moises FocJoi Lio Can

Hyoung-June Park, Chairperson

Keywords: Shared living, Co-living, spatial organization, housing

CHAPTER 1: PROJECT INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2: HAWAIʻI HOUSING CONDITIONS

CHAPTER 3: SHARED LIVING AND CO-LIVING

CHAPTER 5: APPLYING DESIGN GUIDELINES

Figure 1.1: Research path in developing the design guidelines 17

1.2 Project Goals

1.3 Research Scope

The dissertation is divided into three main parts:

• Chapter 2: Investigation of current housing spatial relationships in Hawaiʻi. In this chapter,

• Increasing the percentage of private space in a specific boundary

how to tackle it?

Shared living model: improving floor

Co-living and shared living Hawaiʻi households

Case Studies and Case Studies and

• Space allocation • Users and living conditions

Optimal spatial floor plan

• Private Spaces: It is a space owned by a member or members of a household, such as

BUILDING SHARED CIRCULATION UNIT COMMON CIRCULATION

Circulation shared with different Circulation shared within the same

PRIVATE SPACE VOID SPACES

Space owned by a member/members of Void spaces that allows for connection

Figure 1.2: Classification of spaces in multifamily housing. Source: Author.

13 “A Bill for an Act S.B. No. 2561.” SB2561 CD1.DOC, https://www.capitol.Hawaiʻi.gov/session2016/bills/SB2561_CD1_.HTM.

Figure 2.1. Overcrowding living conditions

17 “A Bill for an Act S.B. No. 2561.” SB2561 CD1.DOC, https://www.capitol.Hawaiʻi.gov/session2016/bills/SB2561_CD1_.HTM.

To increase the supply of private spaces, we need to understand the current

Keauhou Lane. 18 Dec. 2013, https://

“Keauhou Lane.” Architect, 19 Sept. 2018,

“Keauhou Lane.” Keauhou Lane, https://

Living Room Bathroom

Location of Vertical Circulation Location of private spaces and common spaces

Building Shared Spaces

2nd Floor Plan

3rd-6th Floor Plan

Building Shared Spaces

Total 13,851 Total 12,454 7,171 Total 6,435

Total 802 Total 12,911 7,461 Total 6,105

Shared SpaceCommon Space Private SpaceShared Circulation

Ratio 25.9% 32.1% 18.5% 23.5%

Table 1. Keauhou Lane Spatial Distribution Calculation

“Ola Ka ‘Ilima Artspace Lofts.” OLA KA

Location of Vertical Circulation Location of private spaces and common spaces

Building Shared Spaces

3rd Floor plan

Building Shared Spaces

Total 9,705 Total 2,403

Shared SpaceCommon Space Private SpaceShared Circulation

Ratio 24.4% 45.0% 11% 19.6%

Table 2. Ola Ka ’Ilima Artspace Lofts Spatial Distribution Calculation

“Loft at Waikiki, Hawaiʻi: Hi pro Realty:

Loft at Waikiki. Final Environmental

Living Room Bedroom

Building Entrance Pool

Location of Vertical Circulation Location of private spaces and common spaces

Castle & Cooke Homes Hawaiʻi,

“400 Keawe by Castle &