Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness
From: dwn2erth (
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 08:45:05 -0500
-- maybe i "don't have a clue" I can only base my concern about suburban
sprawl with a new name on what your group presents and discusses as well
as the advertising and web pages of the various groups.. as i said before
I am sure that a small percentage of the co-housing projects do, in fact,
result in urban or village revitalization .. thank our lucky stars that
someone sees the need or recognizes the advantages.. I am finding it  most
interesting that my arguments are attempting to remain out of the personal
arena and yet a fair percentage of the responses seem to be of a personal
nature.. not really discussing the issues raised ... although they do seem
to have touched a nerve?   hmmm... 
>dwn2erth [at]

> From: Matt Lawrence <matt [at]>
> To: Jim Willits <dwn2erth [at]>
> Subject: Re: co-housing v.s. old-fashioned neighborliness
> Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 6:10 PM
> On Thu, 14 May 1998, Jim Willits wrote:
> >     
> >     I have to agree with robin ellison. the continued suburban sprawl
> > "hip" new packaging ..."cohousing" is still just traditional suburban
> > sprawl. Urban restoration and village revitalization is the real need
> > the unit costs can be very low by selecting the neighborhood. The
> > impact of a similar group investment into an existing neighborhood
would be
> > very significant and could change the course of history for a
> > neighborhood.    jim willits 
> I think you are seriously lacking a clue.  There are some cohousing
> projects that are located in urban areas.  For example, take a look at
> Doyle Street project.
> -- Matt

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.