Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities. | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: John Faust (wjfaustgmail.com) | |
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:29:38 -0800 (PST) |
Actually, the question of whether housing should be regarded as an investment or as a shelter with enduring community commitment appeared on this list more than a year ago. It was before the housing bubble was visibly collapsing. That discussion didn't gain much traction since most made the assumption that houses that didn't appreciate substantially were somehow defective. That made it somewhat of a moot point. The question, however, wasn't whether houses should appreciate but rather how they should be regarded -- as investments or as enduring commitments. Maybe now, that question takes on new meaning. The house-as-investment view seems at odds with an underlying motivation for cohousing: the restoration of community in our lives. I guess if one bought into a community with the idea of recovering that investment through a reverse mortgage, then both commitment and investment are aligned. But is it likely that someone viewing it as an investment would not upgrade to an even more productive investment if the opportunity presented itself? I don't think the question is an academic one. It probably has an impact on what you build and how you build it. I don't think building for investment or marketability -- a key for developer-financed projects -- would produce the same physical structures as a community-financed project. A developer will have to build for a reasonably large segment of the market and that is understandable. She can't go broke satisfying some client group's dreams. On the other hand, in community-financed projects, the community might take more risks in the use of alternative solutions that haven't been viewed as mainstream (e.g., local energy production, water conservation, native landscaping, small environmental footprint or affordability). So if you build for investment, you will more than likely steer closer to conventional solutions. After all, the performance of that investment will depend on how large that market is when you are ready to recover your gains. If you build for an enduring commitment, you might get a better fit for the members of the community. Another consideration might be participation in the community governance and maintenance. Investors are likely to view that as an additional tax on the investment and opt out. It would be interesting to look at how some of these aspects of cohousing vary (if at all) between developer-financed and community-financed communities. Is turnover in developer-financed projects higher? Is participation in community-financed projects higher? These are just guesses and the answers might surprise me. John
- Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities., (continued)
-
Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities. Sharon Villines, February 8 2009
-
Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities. Racheli Gai, February 8 2009
- Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities. Sharon Villines, February 8 2009
- Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities. Josh Sharp, February 11 2009
- Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities. John Faust, February 12 2009
- Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities. Flowers, February 12 2009
- Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities. John Faust, February 14 2009
- Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities. Sharon Villines, February 14 2009
- Homes as Investments Elizabeth Magill, February 14 2009
-
Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities. Racheli Gai, February 8 2009
-
Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities. Sharon Villines, February 8 2009
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.