|Re: "Targeting" the wealthy||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Becky Weaver (beckyweaverswbell.net)|
|Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:20:28 -0700 (PDT)|
Brian wrote, | And no groups have formed who want to build the kind of off-the-grid | housing that is allowed in communities like Dancing Rabbit where | people can live in tents for $3,000 a year. It would be really | interesting if you wanted to do that. As someone who is willing to self-build all sorts of alternative wierdness, I've wondered about that. Is it that the tastes of cohousers and ecovillagers simply don't overlap? That it's banned by zoning/permitting/licensing/publicity/etc in areas where cohos want to be? That coho structures tend to have mortgages, which require resale values, which requires acceptability to broad tastes? I've done some thinking about this, and I think that mortgages/financing are one factor. More fundamentally, for most ecovillagers, I suspect that the "eco" is foremost and the village is a means to that end. For most cohousers, it's the "co" that's foremost, and the "housing" is a means to that end. Researching alternative weirdness is fun, but if your main goal is community, with the housing as a means to that goal, you will get the housing done much, much faster - possibly even prior to total community burnout - if you turn the design & construction over to people who do housing for a living. Remember that building 30 houses plus a common house, even on a phased construction schedule, has a higher level of complexity than building one house 31 times. This is a massive undertaking, not comparable to building yourself a custom home on your own piece of land. And building professionals have to be more conservative than self-builders, because they'll get sued if they choose something new & it doesn't perform as expected. Another difference between cohousers and those who chose more "alternative" forms of intentional community is that, to make a broad generalization, cohousers are looking to enhance the lives they already have, not embark upon a completely new way of life. Some people, especially retirees, move to a new city for cohousing, but the majority of people move into cohousing while keeping the same job, friends, car, hobbies, and habits that they had before they moved into cohousing. Moving off the grid and living in a tent while self-building your eco-house could get pretty hairy if you were also holding down a full-time job and raising children. Perhaps there are hardy souls who have done this, and my hat's off to them, but the average cohouser isn't looking for that kind of challenge. All that said, the "lot development" model of cohousing offers people who want radical alternative housing the opportunity to build it in cohousing, without taking the entire cohousing community down the alt-road with them. In that model, each household is responsible for building their own house plus financing a portion of the common house & infrastructure. I believe that there have been some interesting alternative construction techniques done on homes in lot development communities, although I'm not sure if any of their owners are on this list. Becky Weaver Central Austin Cohousing/Kaleidoscope Village Austin, Texas
- Re: "Targeting" the wealthy, (continued)
- Re: "Targeting" the wealthy Sharon Villines, July 12 2006
- Re: "Targeting" the wealthy Brian Bartholomew, July 12 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.