Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: dwn2erth (dwn2erthpics.com) | |
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:58:37 -0500 |
liz stevenson thinks my goal is to "demoralize good people" and that I am being truly offensive by questioning the approach and thinking underlying the the larger number of cohousing projects. The fact that a few are developed as urban revitalization does not change the fact that most are not, and, the fact that i think that people should open their eyes and recognize land development for what it is not offensive and doesn't deseve to be labeled as such just because i disagree. I believe that as a 16th generation quaker farm family, land planner, and environmental scientist who has watched watched our open space in the northeast destroyed by land developers of every ilk from the environmentally sensitive clustered type to the obviously uncaring, I care and hope that other "caring" people will also care and recognize the actual resultsof their actions. I have heard "efficient land use" argued from all sides. so what! How about if we produce no more suburban housing... ZERO GROWTH in other words.. terribly sorry you find dissent offensive. must make concensus discussion difficult..-- >dwn2erth [at] pics.com ---------- > From: Roman Bitner <lilbert [at] concentric.net> > Subject: Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness > Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 4:07 PM > > Jim Willits wrote: > > > > > > I have to agree with robin ellison. the continued suburban sprawl with > > "hip" new packaging ..."cohousing" is still just traditional suburban > > sprawl. Urban restoration and village revitalization is the real need and > > the unit costs can be very low by selecting the neighborhood. The economic > > impact of a similar group investment into an existing neighborhood would be > > very significant and could change the course of history for a particular > > neighborhood. jim willits > > http//www.bioactive.com > > http//willits [at] bioactive.com > My guess is that you have not seen or heard of Southside Park Cohousing, > N Street Cohousing, or any of the retrofit cohousings built or being > built. You have missed one of the crucial ideas in cohousing, not > mentioned as much as it should be, perhaps. Efficient land use is key to > cohousing and many of us are deeply committed to it. You are way out of > line to say we are suburban sprawl. There ARE groups who include low and > moderate income houses, and we worked hard to be one of them. Please do > your homework before posting again. Your only motivation seems to be to > demoralize good people who are trying to build a better community, and > it is really offensive. > Liz Stevenson
- Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness, (continued)
- Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness Robin D. Ellison, May 14 1998
- Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness Jim Willits, May 14 1998
- Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness Jim Willits, May 14 1998
- Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness Roman Bitner, May 14 1998
- Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness dwn2erth, May 14 1998
- Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness Jennifer S. Stevens, May 14 1998
- Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness Matt Lawrence, May 15 1998
- Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness Matt Lawrence, May 15 1998
- Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness dwn2erth, May 16 1998
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.