Re: optimum size for a community | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Chris ScottHanson (chriscohousingresources.com) | |
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:02:01 -0700 (MST) |
on 3/25/02 7:56 AM, eugeniep [at] umich.edu at eugeniep [at] umich.edu wrote: > Greetings. > Is there any list wisdom that suggests the optimum size of a cohousing > community? I can think that too few would make for too much work for > everyone involved, yet too many would lose the ability to make consensual > group decisions, or even interfere with a town hall type of decision > process. > TIA > Eugenie Potter > eugeniep [at] umich.edu > Eugenie, and those on the list that might find this topic as interesting as I do... I have done nothing but cohousing since 1988. I read what M&D said about this topic in their book in 1988, and it made sense to me then, and still does now. I have lived in 3 different cohousing communities now, and still completely agree with what they found as a pattern in Denmark, a pattern that seems to hold here in this country, too. I tell people that the ideal range for a cohousing community is 18 to 36 dwelling units, and that there are successful communities which are both larger and smaller. It seems that the ³ideal² size is best described with a bell curve, with 24 to 30 units at the very top of the curve, with 18 and 36 units out on the steep shoulders of the curve. I am sure that others participating on this list may have other, possibly very different opinions. >From a development perspective, and my work is in acquiring sites, putting together the professional team and getting more cohousing built, if you have a site that works for 42 units it would be best if it could be developed into two communities. On the other hand, an 85 unit site could be 3 or 4 or even 5 communities. For a 36 unit site which would work well as one community, I would seriously consider making it two 18 unit communities, especially in an urban area, and especially if there is any chance that the group will have a challenge growing the community membership. If the membership fills quickly it is always more cost effective to do as much at once as possible. More units = more cost effective. I would postulate that larger communities work better (sociologically) in more rural settings, and that smaller communities can work better in very urban settings. In other words the bell curve shifts up or down based on the urban or rural character of the site. I think this has to do with social and interpersonal connections to the wider community, and what are sometimes called off-site affiliates, or non-resident associates who participate in community activities, but not live within the community. A community that is smaller than about 12 units seems to be challenging for a couple of reasons, and many residents of communities that are this small generally report this to be true. It seems to get too intimate for some people, and this may mean that you have to like everyone. Some would say that it is hard to make the common facilities work economically in such a small community. Larger than about 40 units gets very challenging also, for the opposite reason. While you have the economic advantages, and the advantage of not having to like everyone, it gets hard to know everyone, and to keep track of their regular visitors and family members. The pedestrian street seems less ³SAFE² and it starts to feel like you need to lock your front door. Remember the competing interest in cost effectiveness. This would have you build as large a community as possible since larger communities are simply more affordable to build, if you know what you are doing. I hope the sociologists figure out how interesting all this is someday. Small group process, decision making, perceptions of belonging and safety, satisfaction with staying on site and not leaving to get your needs met, etc. etc. I find these patterns of behavior and the feelings about belonging and participation to be fascinating, and I think the number of households in a community is important, or is it the number of adult members? In community, Chris ScottHanson Cohousing Resources, LLC Ecovillages, Cohousing & Sustainable Communities Development and Consulting for a Sustainable Future based on the Natural Power of Community email: Chris [at] CohousingResources.com web site: http://www.CohousingResources.com 9813 NE Murden Cove Dr. Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206)842-9160 (206)842-9203 FAX (206)369-7755 Cell Author of: The Cohousing Handbook BUILDING A PLACE FOR COMMUNITY ©1996 Hartley & Marks Publishers, Vancouver BC Check our website for ordering information at http://www.cohousingresources.com/book.html "A must read for anyone ready to move beyond talk." _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
- Re: optimum size for a community, (continued)
-
Re: optimum size for a community Jeanne Goodman, DesksideGuru, March 25 2002
-
Re: optimum size for a community Sharon Villines, March 25 2002
- Re: optimum size for a community Catya Belfer-Shevett, March 25 2002
-
Re: optimum size for a community Sharon Villines, March 25 2002
- Re: optimum size for a community Howard Landman, March 25 2002
- Re: optimum size for a community Chris ScottHanson, March 26 2002
- Re: optimum size for a community Fred H Olson, March 26 2002
- Re: optimum size for a community Sharon Villines, April 2 2002
-
Re: optimum size for a community Jeanne Goodman, DesksideGuru, March 25 2002
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.