|The urban/rural coho dichotomy||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|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.