"Base Model" Cohousing - Hold the Options, Please
From: Dan Suchman (71756.2661compuserve.com)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 11:45:20 -0500
Thank you Elizabeth Basch and Rob Sandelin for your thoughtful and passionate
responses to my invitation for dissent.  I suspect that we are in agreement on
ends, but differ on means.  I also suspect that you might have misinterpreted
some of what I had to say.  [Who was it that said (I'm paraphrasing)  "words are
too poor a means of communication to be used carelessly"?]  I offer the
following as an attempt at clarification:

Elizabeth:  I did not say or mean to imply that "base model" cohousing is
"morally superior" to any other form of cohousing, with or without the "optional
equipment".  I meant only to suggest that "base model" cohousing has plenty to
offer our society, even without all of those "options".  I DID mean to say that
"base model" cohousing may have the practical advantages of being easier to
achieve and having appeal to much broader market, thereby spreading the benefits
of cohousing more widely and rapidly than cohousing which is encumbered by too
many specialized and non-mainstream interests and values.  My experience from
living in cohousing, and meeting many others who live in or are creating
cohousing, is that most of us are willing to give up our "dream homes" (be they
"green", completely "non-toxic", "spiritual" or "owner-built") to have the
benefits of simply living in a closer knit community.  Naturally, there are
exceptions.

Rob:  I hope that the foregoing response to Elizabeth answers some of your
questions to me.  If not, please try me again.  I think you only reinforced my
point when you stated that "people who are interested in cohousing choose it
because they want the bonds of community, and will accept a great deal of other
bullshit in order to have those bonds."  I suspect that "bullshit" means
different things to different people.   Might it mean to some living in a
community that lives by more or less mainstream values?  If so, you and I are in
agreement.  I am most definitely NOT advocating that cohousing cease to evolve
and develop different "flavors" once it becomes more widespread.  I'm only
suggesting that it first be given a chance to become more widespread.  The
several styles of cohousing in the Puget Sound area may seem like a broad array
of choices to someone already inclined to live in cohousing.  But I suspect that
few, if any, of these communites would be selected by the vast majority of
people currently living in suburbia.  These are the very people who could most
benefit from cohousing, but are discouraged from trying it because of all the
non-mainstream dogma that they would have to buy into in order to live there.
Some of these people might be GREAT cohousing neighbors and communitarians (I
can think of many of my friends and family members, as examples), but are
discouraged from trying it because they happen not to have an interest in (or
tolerance for) consensus decision-making, vegetarian food, Sufi dancing, sharing
circles or any of the other "non-essentials".

So let there be "50 flavors" out there (I like moca chocolate chip, myself).
But lets first be sure to have on hand a healthy stock of "vanilla", for the
many who prefer it and could benefit by it. 

Dan Suchman
Winslow Cohousing
Bainbridge Island, WA

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.