|Urban or other sprawl||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Rob Sandelin (Floriferousclassic.msn.com)|
|Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 18:35:42 -0500|
This is a good topic, since most cohousers end up becoming land developers. The argument was made that cohousing is no better than other developers because we chew up land and put up high density housing on it. The development impact of Shady Lane condomimiums and Shady Lane cohousing might only be a small degree. In some cases, Cohousing uses land much better than for profit developers would have, but certainly many do not, or make little difference. Because of the citizen investor nature of the projects, cheaper land is often sought out away from the higher priced urban areas, and in some cases, cohousing groups specifically move out in to the rural areas by design or by Hobsons choice, rural sites being the only ones affordable. Is this bad? Should the movement frown upon rural cohousing? Should we concentrate on developing cohousing only in urban areas? The Danish model (which I call the capital project model) as presented in Chuck and Katies book shows high density housing. There are many models they did not show in their book, including the very common (In Sweden, Denmark) high rise model of cohousing. Should we be promoting high rise cohousing as well? Rob Sandelin Sharingwood
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.