Urban or other sprawl
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.