The urban/rural coho dichotomy
From: Michael C. Murray (71543.3020CompuServe.COM)
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 93 19:33 CDT
phalpern [at] world.std.com wrote (in reply to a reply):
>       > 
>       >There seem to me to be two distinct styles of cohousing, urban 
and rural.  The
>       >rural style seems a lot more to me like the commune concept than 
the urban
>       >groups, who seem more interested in building a small-town type of 
community
>       >while remaining close to their place of employment and other 
urban
>       >attractions.  The former, I think, are the ones really interested 
in
>       >sustainable development.
>I don't think it's a good idea to automatically link idealogy to the
>urban v. rural v. suburban separation.  

Our sentiments exaclty -- sustainability (or sustainable practices in terms 
of
energy, food, transportation etc.) is a separate issue from rural/urban 
site.  The
"dichotomy" presented here is rather a stereotype.  For proof of the
converse , see urban "sustainable" practices as provided by Whole Builders 
Cooperative and others in Mpls. and elsewhere: Urban dwelling _needn't_ 
mean 
20 or 30 families in a drafty, circa-1900 building, nor does "rural" imply 
a self-
scavenged diet of berries and grubs perserved through winter via solar 
dryers :^). 

 This _was_ er, our reply to this point which I don't think survived 
mailing.  Rasberry 
to compuserve for charging me for the priviledge.

> -- 
> Pablo Halpern             (508) 435-5274          
>

Susan Jorgenson and Michael Murray


  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.