|Re: House Location Selection||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Nancy E Wight (wightworld.std.com)|
|Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 22:51 CDT|
Maria Gassner asked: > My interest was piqued by Nancy Wight's reference to how those at New > View learned about what works in house location selection (the hard way) > Could you elaborate on that? I know I have already posted some of what follows. I apologize for any repetition, but I do so to answer Maria's question. To make a long story a little less long, we had to go through site selection two times. Once when we thought we were going to be 29 households, and once after we redesigned the site plan after learning we could only be 24. First of all, we decided a long time ago that people with the most seniority would have first choice in house location selection. But when we actually had to implement this, we felt we should use seniority only as a last resort in resolving a conflict. The first time (aka how *not* to do it), we decided to hire an outside consultant, one who worked closely with our architect, to be the "matchmaker". We felt this would be fairer than using someone in the group. We all filled out questionnaires about our preferences and gave them to the matchmaker. He then proceeded, confidentially, to match people to houses, based on their criteria. When there was a conflict, he would call up the parties involved and consult with the architect to see if there was anything that could be done to resolve it. Otherwise, he would invoke seniority. What happened was, when there was a conflict, no one found out about it until after the process was over. Some people felt that maybe they could have helped resolve the conflict, if only they *knew* about it. There was a tendency for those involved in the conflict not to budge, because they had no evidence that anyone else was. Also, the matchmaker made some controversial decisions that made some people feel like they were treated unfairly. In hindsight, it was too complicated of a process to just hand it over to someone outside of the group. The second time, we took the advice of some of the good folks on this list, as well as our architect, and decided to make the whole process open. We had one, five hour meeting at which we had a huge site plan on the wall with household names on sticky notes. We resolved conflicts mostly as a group. It was interesting that people kind of figured out what site locations they could get based on their seniority and the preferences of those with greater seniority. They tended to only choose the locations they thought they could get. The second time around worked much better, because we all witnessed the conflicts and the attempted solutions. We all had input. The power of the group was there. As far as I know, everyone except one household was happy with the site they got. What I learned from this was: 1) Seniority was used more than I expected, even though most of the time it wasn't explicit. 2) It's much better to keep things out in the open. 3) The group as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Good Luck! - Nancy Nancy Wight wight [at] world.std.com New View Neighborhood Development Acton, MA
- Re: House location selection, (continued)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.