|Re: early years/alternative model||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: 'Judith Wisdom (wisdompobox.upenn.edu)|
|Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 05:21:09 -0500|
As many of you know I'm new to the cohousing concept and neither have experience (direct) with it nor have done vast reading. But, heh. I've engaged in a mini-private discussion not of early years or even small in numbers issue but about the suspicion that some places have subcultures/geists/ethos that are not as open to concepts like cohousing. Frankly I firmly believe this, and that cohousing is only one of a cluster of cultural formations certain places are very conservative about. Since I think Philly is one of those places (I was born and raised here and fortunately have lived elsewhere) I was thinking that maybe, just maybe, if I'm right, that cohousing has to make some adaptations. Here's where I'm scared some on the list will get upset and rail that what I'm saying isn't cohousing. Okay, let's say it's cohousing inspired, or the closest some places can come to cohousing. My thought is that in such places maybe the thing to do is to find a neighborhood that's appealing in terms of look and other residents and all the other things that would draw you to live there (and establish if it were possible) a real traditional coho community, even if it were not built from scratch. Then, instead of finding contiguous properties and a common house, say in a circle or such, form a tight coho group and each family unit purchase separate properties on several (if in the city and that's what I'm thinking) streets nearby each other (or, if possible, one street). If there is enough $s buy one for a common house. And stick together re dinners, meetings, group purchases, and all the rest. I offer this because it could (I think--no vast or really any experience except life in regular neighborhoods) even draw in other like-minded folks. I have in mind several very "neighborhoody" areas in Phila. Places where the sort of people who tend to be drawn (now) to coho already live. Don't tar and feather me please. Oh, one other virtue. People might be more willing to join because in such an arrangement it might be that each unit might be easier to resell should someone want to. And I suspect that's something that keeps some families/individuals out. Not because of nonaffinity to coho, but because of the realities of modern life. This overlaps, I think, with Russell M's notions of turning neighborhood into places that have the virtue of coho. But this goes a step further. Coho is embedded in the neighborhood, with distinct relationship connections, but also with possibilities for interaction and absorption. I hope this doesn't cause an earthquake in Denmark. And I full well know this is not a traditional approach and know,too, some wouldn't call this coho. But it's coho-like. It ain't just buying a house and living in the isolation many of us now live. By a long shot. Judith Wisdom wisdom [at] pobox.upenn.edu
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.