Nestled in a half-acre lot beside Frog Hollow Outdoors and Cocoa Cinnamon is the 2024 Triangle AIA Housing Merit Award winner: Bull City Commons Cohousing (BCC). BCC is a very recent cohousing development in the Triangle area, completed in 2023 by withArchitecture.

This past May, I had the pleasure of joining Jim McCraw, one of BCC’s founding members, for an ‘under-the-hood’ tour of the cohousing’s physical design and community dynamics.

Designing for a Society

When it comes to condo and apartment design, site and efficiency are crucial factors. But as Jim explained, BCC was a community-first project from the very beginning. To Jim and his fellow founders, the most important consideration was how to design intentionally for the specific social fabric that they aimed to cultivate. They chose to adopt a sociocratic model of leadership, where decisions from funding to schematics were made in a non-hierarchical fashion.

This piece was written by CITYBUILDER student fellow Lucas Nagel through the Allison Ramsey Architects Intentional Community Research Fellowship. A special thanks to Allison Ramsey Architects for funding research into the importance of design in creating a sustainable, thriving urban future.

Sociocracy is a method of leadership or civic organization comparable to democracy in its attempt to structure power, justice, and decision making. The model suggests organization through circles of governance. Within each circle, appointed and volunteer members operate through consensus, which is feasible due to the small scale of each group. In cohousing spaces for instance, there may be a circle on landscaping, one on maintenance, and another on shared meals. Each circle is committed to demonstrating a high level of expertise and thoughtfulness in every decision. With each member dedicated to at least one circle, power is effectively dispersed amongst the entire community. Finances and policy are two topics that are non-circle specific, and thus require full community consent.

Once I understood the motivations behind BCC’s sociocracy, my tour with Jim began to unpack a layer of intention beyond surface-level design decisions. Moreover, the conversation between built and societal mechanisms became clear through three design elements: outdoor integration, interior public spaces, and apartment design.

Connection with Nature

BCC is well known for its extensive gardens, which were a featured stop on the 2026 Durham Garden Tour. The gardens are possible in part due to the site’s stormwater drain easement. The flora that have blossomed at BCC since completion in 2023 are now a defining feature of the community. The continued growth of the gardens is further invested in by BCC’s “Grounds Circle” which includes two master gardeners.

It’s no accident that all of the apartments at BCC face Southwest, it’s a principle of equality. Balconies are another design element that contribute to the sociocratic ideals at BCC while capitalizing on the verdant surroundings. Each apartment is guaranteed a view of either the dense tree canopy or the gardens below, which can be enjoyed from one’s balcony, or the floor-to-ceiling glass doors.

Finally, because BCC is organized on a single-loaded corridor, hallways receive ample light from morning to midday. To take full advantage of this natural resource, the architects devised a double layer system for light to first penetrate the hallway and then filter into individual apartments through clerestory windows.

Space for Community

Carving out common areas for community gathering was a critical move to facilitate group living while promoting inter-circle dialogue. While many circles may operate independently of one another, finding opportunities for collaboration or external commentary is just as important. Beyond functionality, building space for socialization with shared amenities is essential to the concept of cohousing.

The ground floor common room was the first place Jim brought me to. The space is unique in that it is the only interior communal space that is not located on a residential hall. It functions as a place for circle meetings, friend-group socials, and a visitor welcoming area. It is also directly adjacent to the laundry facilities which increases the likelihood of “random interactions by design” as people wait for their clothes to finish.

At the end of the second floor hallway, the multi-purpose room provides another environment for informal gathering. It’s a nice place to spend time with others without even needing to leave the building.

Bridging off the second floor community room is the kitchen and dining room, which is an extension of the food prep and entertaining amenities available in the individual residences. This space is used as a venue for potluck-style dinners and a place to host guests.

Finally, in what might otherwise have been a mundane space for circulation, the residents of BCC have embraced the generous width of the hallway space, adding bookshelves, puzzle tables, and even personal art installations that give each floor a warm, lived-in character. Additionally, two large storage closets provide overflow space for residents in each hall to store seasonal and non-household items.

The Residences

BCC is home to twenty-three units and just thirty residents. Each unit is also guaranteed a space for car and bike storage either in the on-grade first-floor parking podium, or one of the three outside spaces.

Units vary in size from five-hundred square feet to fifteen-hundred, stacking vertically for mechanical, electric, and plumbing (MEP) efficiency. However, designing the floor plans of these units was not simply a cost-engineered, efficiency-driven procedure. Using circles of governance, early residents were organized based on intended unit size and building location. From there, several “stack circles” were provided an opportunity to meet with the design team to negotiate the optimal floor plan that could accommodate varying lifestyles between floors, while maintaining a cost-effective rigor through MEP alignment.

Unit prices represent an enduring consideration of sociocracy that is built into BCC’s approach to real estate. For context, a standard condominium may determine a base sales price in addition to a scalable unit cost based on size, amenities, and furnishings. In this scenario, unit size is a limited factor in the overall cost. BCC’s approach follows a more egalitarian, equitable access model, in which larger unit buyers help subsidize affordable unit prices. First, the total building cost is divided by livable square footage. Then each unit-buyer is quoted at the fixed rate times their unit-size. Because of this, a 500 sqft unit is approximately one third the price of a 1500 sqft unit, a logical yet rarely practiced financing model.

Vision for the Future

As I was introduced to the friendly residents of BCC along the tour, it struck me that the cohousing population is much more densely clustered toward mid to post-career residents than other cohousing communities I’ve researched. For having such a prime location, I wondered why there’s a lack of young home-owner representation at BCC. However, Jim said that it wasn’t designed to be this way. His hypothesis is that the demographics are simply a result of the initial downpayment strategy. Without a developer, incoming residents were asked to share the risk, contributing a forty-percent down payment to fund the project. Naturally, people with the means to commit financially happened to be those with more years of savings. But this trend is not expected to persist. In fact, Jim surmises that within the coming years, the entire community could see a large shift in age demographics. Perhaps this is a sustainable model for the future. As the demand for homes increases, this intergenerational hand-off may hold the keys to securing better housing for a broader population. The first step is to build more places like Bull City Commons Cohousing.

This piece was written by CITYBUILDER student fellow Lucas Nagel through the Allison Ramsey Architects Intentional Community Research Fellowship. A special thanks to Allison Ramsey Architects for funding research into the importance of design in creating a sustainable, thriving urban future.

During the March 17th Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC) meeting in Durham via Zoom, City Council members Matt Kopac and Carl Rist stated the importance of reforming Durham’s land use policies in the new (but stalled) Durham Land Development Code (LDC, née UDO).

Per Action 1 of the unanimously passed Vision Zero Action Plan, “Update Land Use Policy,” changing land use practices to limit vehicle miles traveled will be critical in achieving Durham’s Vision Zero Goals.

Vision Zero is a a global strategy aimed at eliminating all traffic fatalities and severe injuries. Durham adopted a Resolution Committing to Vision Zero in September 2017, aiming to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries by 50% by 2035 and achieve the goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries on Durham roadways by 2045. Durham is not on track to meet these targets.

Land Use regulations dictate which uses – agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential, etc. – are allowed which locations. Critically, land use regulations are also used to determine how much of these uses are allowed in those locations, and have been used to enforce low-density development patterns (AKA sprawl). Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) refers to how far people drive in their cars. Scholars and advocates agree, we can decrease traffic fatalities by decreasing VMT, and we can reduce VMT by increasing density.

During budget discussions at a recent BPAC meeting, an advisory commission member noted that any debates affecting transit, parking, and street safety must be considered in the context of Durham’s unanimously adopted Vision Zero Action Plan.

The commission member reminded those present that the Action Plan identifies reducing vehicle miles traveled as one of the most important ways to reduce deaths and serious injuries from traffic violence, which makes land use, parking policy, and transit investment central to achieving the city’s stated safety goals.

While acknowledging that funding gaps and process constraints make progress harder, the commission member argued that Durham has already seriously committed to ambitious Vision Zero targets, and needs to commit to making steady progress, rather than falling further behind.

Councilmember Kopac Responded:

In response, a commission member explained that the BPAC’s LDC Task Force had focused mainly on bicycle and pedestrian provisions, including infrastructure and parking, but not land use changes, nor questions around where growth should go – not because BPAC members opposed Vision Zero’s tactics, but because they focused on design elements that were more tied to BPAC’s scope.

Councilmember Rist Responded:

CITYBUILDER agrees. To advocate for our communities to be places where we can walk and bike safely cannot be disentangled from the work of remediating the land use standards that created our current sprawl and car-dependent development patterns. We need more housing, and we need it close to other housing (and shops! And Work! And parks!). This is the density needed for us to bike and walk safely through our cities and towns.

Be sure to stay tuned to CITYBUILDER for updates regarding Durham’s new LDC, and for innovations and insights from across the Triangle to find out more about which local places are successfully supporting land use that allows for more housing located closer to places of employment, education, and services.

Stay safe out there.

Durham is in the middle of rewriting the rules that shape how the city grows.

Those rules are called the Unified Development Ordinance, or UDO. The new version is now being referred to as the Land Development Code, or LDC. Whichever acronym you use, it is the same thing: the zoning code that decides what can be built, where it can be built, and what kinds of neighborhoods Durham makes possible.

Most people never read a zoning code. But everyone lives inside the decisions it makes. Zoning quietly determines whether a neighborhood can add new homes, whether a corner store can open, whether a church can build housing, or whether an apartment building is allowed. As such, zoning directly shapes housing affordability, neighborhood change, and who is able to live in a growing city.

Durham’s current UDO was adopted in 2006 to implement the city’s 2005 Comprehensive Plan. The city that code was written for is not the Durham we live…

Read more

This piece is authored by Jason Cox, a restaurateur and small-scale developer based in Graham, NC. You can follow him over on X @jasonc_nc where he frequently writes about real estate, urbanism, hospitality, and where they collide, including regular debates about fire code and small fire trucks.

Read more

Other posts in our Durham’s New UDO series:

• Mixed-Use and the 15 Minute City

• Supporting Small-Scale Affordable Housing

• How We Encourage Sprawl Without Meaning To

The next UDO may have the best intentions, but the details matter. We can envision better, more inclusive communities. We can strive for more walkable and resilient neighborhoods. But if a small detail trips up the type of development that Durham wants to see, we may keep getting more of the same: sprawling, exclusive, single-family housing. Crucially, the effects of those small but prohibitive policy details will never be uncovered, because we don’t have …

Read more

CITYBUILDER organized this event because we believe housing isn’t just policy; it’s people. Every councilor vote, zoning case, ordinance, and plan affect our lives and our futures. Voters deserve leaders who are willing to talk about these decisions publicly.

We know first-hand that the people of Durham want to talk about housing.

This forum was just one night, but it’s part of a growing movement. In the past month, CITYBUILDERS’ readership and membership have surged, following tens of thousands…

Read more

Every September, city dwellers around the world roll out sod, set up café tables, and haul planters into parking spaces for Park(ing) Day — a playful reminder that the way we allocate space says everything about what we value. In public acts of reclamation, citizens commandeer curbside spots and declare that streets can be for people too, not just cars.

At CityBuilder, we’ve been talking a lot about how to better use our urban spaces. First, we called for ending parking mandates so we can build more housing and better neighborhoods. Then we looked at how “No parking, No problem” relies on creating diverse, multimodal transportation options where people live and work. Today, we’re discussing how parking policy and density connect to bikes, and why the future of bikeability isn’t just about paint on pavement.

The Feedback Loop: Density + Bikeability

Density makes bikeability practical; bikeability mak…

Read more

Every election shapes the kind of city we live in. As we wrote in Every Vote Builds a City, local races are where decisions about housing, growth, and neighborhood stability get made. These choices determine whether Durham welcomes new neighbors or shuts the door. That is why we are grading candidates on housing.

We reviewed candidate questionnaires and public records to grade mayoral and city council candidates on their housing positions, understanding of Durham’s current housing landscape, ideas for increasing housing supply and support for key zoning policy reforms. Grades reflect the candidates' consistency, urgency, and clarity of support for new homes, affordability, and growth.

Housing is Durham’s defining issue, and these grades show where each candidate stands. Your vote this election will decide whether our city continues to say yes to homes and new neighbors.

So, who made the grade? See for yourself.

Read more

Over the past year, Durham has been rolling out its “Small Area Plans” (SAP) initiative — described by the city as “a way for residents to influence the future planning and development in their neighborhoods.” Just last month, the City Council adopted its first SAP, the Walltown Small Area Plan. Other neighborhoods are clamoring to start their own SAPs — the public engagement process is now underway for Lakewood, West End, and Lyon Park. SAPs aren’t a direct or immediate change to the UDO, but much like the larger Comprehensive Plan, they set the vision for the development of a neighborhood. Neighbors and councilors will judge future rezonings and developments against the SAPs, making them a powerful public instrument.

Neighbors coming together to develop a collective…

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

On June 16, 2025, Durham City Council heard a case to rezone a small property for an equally small townhouse development. It was by a local builder who was going through his first rezoning and cleared the planning commission unanimously. One Council Member asked several questions about the lack of additional proffers despite the small size of the project. Council Member Caballero’s response is published in full.

Read more

Prior to the completion of the development, the parcel was empty, owned by Duke University but not yet put to use. When they wanted to create housing for faculty and staff, Duke turned to local developer, Bob Chapman, of Traditional Neighborhood Development Partners, which has developed dense, mixed-use, infill, walkable neighborhoods across the county.

However, creating a similar environment to the existing neighborhood, which was built from around 1895 to 1905, had been effectively outlawed by zoning codes by the 1990…

Read more

Other Posts in the Series

• Mixed-Use and the 15 Minute City

• Supporting Small-Scale Affordable Housing

• Small Rules, Big Problems

So much of life is tradeoffs and zoning codes are no exception. Whenever a policy is proposed, it is important to:

1. Think about what tradeoffs there might be.

2. Think about the policy holistically – how does it affect the rest of the system?

In both the current and proposed UDOs, there are a lot of requirements that seek to create a better city. However, it is important to look at both sides of the coin. Let’s examine thes…

Read more

Read more

The following was a response to the rezoning case for apartments near the Sandy Creek Trail. While inside the Urban Growth Boundary, opposition argued it was too close to the trail. It was approved 4-3 after debate. His comments are republished in full, with particularly interesting parts in bold.

Read more

Other Posts in the Series:

• Mixed-Use and the 15-Minute City

• How We Encourage Sprawl Without Meaning To

• Small Rules, Big Problems

Read more

Other Posts in the Series

• Supporting Small-Scale Affordable Housing

• How We Encourage Sprawl Without Meaning To

• Small Rules, Big Problems

In its current form, the UDO excludes many important community and commercial uses. We have a mandate from our Comprehensive Plan adopted by City Council to work towards a 15-minute city, where amenities and daily needs are no more than a 15-minute walk or bike ride away. It isn’t sustainable to continue creating sprawling development patterns by not integrating a wide variety of uses.

One of the greatest joys o…

Read more

Planners and urbanists love to come up with technical terms. For example, growing up in Hawaii, I lived in a house with a small cottage on the property. We called it our “ohana” unit.

Many years and one planning degree later, I now recognize that as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). I can’t imagine a more technocratic shift, from ohana, meaning family in the Hawaiian language, to the robotic and jargony idea of a “dwelling unit.”

Likewise, there has been renewed discussion of accessory commercial units (ACUs) recently. A hundred years ago, these were simply referred to as “neighborhood groceries.”

Read more