Re: size of community | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Fred H Olson (fholsoncohousing.org) | |
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:38:43 -0700 (PDT) |
From: Susan Coberly <susandgeorge [at] gmail.com> is the author of the message below. It was posted by Fred, the Cohousing-L list manager <fholson [at] cohousing.org> after deleting quoted digest. I think it is in response to to a May 30th post which was in the digest: Balance Between Economic Viability and Vital community http://lists.cohousing.org/archives/cohousing-l/msg31611.html -------------------- FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS -------------------- we also considered conventional wisdom ideal size 25-35 households. We settled on 28 as halfway in between. ther was concern about not knowing people well enough with too large a group. I don't think that the majority of our group in existence at the time considered whether increasing to 35 or more would substantially increase affordability. Frankly the Folsom area might accept that more readily. Fresno area has proved a hard sell for cohousing concept, shared common space, smaller unit size, etc. Our parcel of land was an easy sell to the city for rezoning to 10 units an acre, but we believed we would not be able to "sell" more density to the city/ the neighborhood. The lot shape and the majority's preference for townhouse/ flats (not a more "apartmenty" look/feel) constrained us to a particlar layout and actually would have constrained higher density. We believed (rightly or wrongly) that an "apartmenty" look/feel would anot be as appealing and might turn away people in Fresno area who are used to the suburban sprawl so typical of our development here. but we didn't test these thoughts.if you have time and energy to test these thoughts, that would be great. Furthermore, we found after working up the site plan and buildings in a way that didn't look awfully "different", that many people who seemed likely fit for the cohousing life couldn't afford a unit unless it was heavily discounted. That is, many people in this area consider anything over 150 K too high in 2006-07 and with the downturn in the housing market that is no less true now. Nevertheless, we had 21 +households on board at start of construction but when the project was ready for the start of move in in fall 2008,14 households moved in; 12 (either at the time of move in or after renting a spell )closed their purchases. Another has decided can't purchase and remains renting. Another was pending sale - renting until funding - and decided to buy elsewhere and we lost that family. Many long term households had to drop out because they couldn't sell their existing home(s), while others went ahead and bought and are renting out their old homes hoping for a change in the market eventually. The development partner has rented some units out,. Many still remain unsold although our development partner will consider discounting. When most people compare apples (us) to oranges (standard smaller developer built tract homes), they are choosing oranges. That said, even someone who drops out unable to buy may later buy. A long time member of our community recently closed on a unit after thinking she wouldn't be able to, after selling her old home and wilth some family assistance. Basically I think you have to assess as a community how much you can drop the price down with the addition of "x" more households. How much will the price drop, realistically? is it enough to fully sell out the project? You also have to be sure the number you are counting on is real. If members of the group end up not buying for whatever reason, will the homes rapidly sell to other families, and can they be drawn into the life of the community/ participation? Can the community run on the number of units sold?Then, you have to consider whether your community can "run" with more than 35 households. Is that too big to not know each other? does it prevent easy interaction? did you have to upsize the common facilities to accomodate the larger number such that it then feels too big to take care of or enjoy? Susan at La Querencia (Fresno Cohousing)
- Sad report from Bristol, (continued)
-
Sad report from Bristol Stephan Wik, February 20 2005
- Intentional Community trends? [was: Sad report from Bristol Fred H Olson, February 21 2005
- Re: Intentional Community trends? [was: Sad report from Bristol Stephan Wik, February 21 2005
-
Sad report from Bristol Stephan Wik, February 20 2005
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.