|Re: New Home Developments||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Joani Blank (jeblankic.org)|
|Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 03:10:26 -0600|
Not really the right heading but I want to continue the string Jasmine started about a possible site in the South Bay (SF Bay Area, right?) Jasmine, you said that this group of houses seemed very cohousinglike except for the lack of a common house. What characteristics did it have that caused you to say that about it. Does it have all pedestrian space between the houses? (assuming they are on two sides of a street or cul de sac, I guess) Are they clustered at all including at least duplexes or triplexes? I agree that resident involvement is necessary in the site plan, and certainly the common facilities. And there are characteristics of individual home design in cohousing that greatly enhance the connectedness people feel there. But you can have all the individual customization you want if you are willing to pay for it!. I'd put more priority on standardization of individual homes and putting any additional monies that saves you collectively into the common house. I know that a common house is not listed as one of the six criteria bandied about these days (check the web page if you haven 't read it for a while at the beginning of the FAQ section). What I personally think important if you don't a common house, Is to have a structure for having a minimum of two common meals a week, in a place that can regularly accommodate 2/3 of the community members. Also not having a common laundry used by most or all of the residents reduces opportunities for making community as does having mail delivered to each home. Joani Blank Doyle Street Cohousing/Old Oakland Cohousing
- Re: New Home Developments, (continued)
- RE: New Home Developments Rob Sandelin, February 1 1999
- Re: New Home Developments Judy Baxter, February 2 1999
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.