Re: Elevators and exclusions
From: Jenny Guy (
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 13:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Regarding economical building, and affording elevators:

You mentioned you'd probably build townhouses to save money; I think that
townhouses are more costly than flats.  Many people consider them "nicer"
and they have the advantage that everyone's unit opens directly onto the
courtyard.  But every home needs a staircase, which costs more.  If you
build flats, all the ground floor flats are accessible without an elevator,
and all the second floor units could be accessible with a single elevator,
and a balcony connecting them.

But elevator or no, I think you've got more accessibility and significantly
lower cost with flats than with townhouses.  Well, if you didn't have an
elevator you'd have more *livable* units with flats, and more
*visitable*ones with townhouses.... I think you'd save more than
enough for an elevator
by eliminating all those internal staircases and the space they take up.

-Jenny Guy
North Oakland Cohousing, California

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Matthew Whiting <mewhiting [at]> 

> ... my
> guess is that if I ever end up living in cohousing it will be with a group
> that is very cost conscience.  Maybe that means we have a pavilon instead
> of
> a common house. It will likely mean townhouse design with stairs to an
> upper
> floor in the residences.  Certainly in the area we're looking we can not
> afford enough land to build everything on one level and have much land left
> over.
> -Matt Whiting
> Utah Valley Commons - forming
> Provo, Utah

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.