Re: Are We Done with the Rental Issue? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Diane (dianeclaire![]() |
|
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:57:16 -0800 (PST) |
Oh no. I meant to send that just to Jerome. Sorry, diane On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Fred H Olson <fholson [at] cohousing.org> wrote: > > Grace Kim <grace [at] schemataworkshop.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 and restoring subject line. > -------------------- FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS -------------------- > > Philip- > To your point, in the urban areas people. Don't think living in apts > is second class to sgl family homes. In fact, I am involved with a > small forming community in downtown seattle. We've not advertised at > all and people are finding us (2-3 new visitors monthly) because they > are interested in urban flats/apts. Daybreak cohousing is also an > example of very urban/dense but with lots of common area - doesn't > look/feel inferior to sgl family. And sgl family homes can be rented > as at Ravenna Commons in seattle, when they are existing homes. > > I think there needs to be a paradigm shift in cohousing, not only in > rental vs ownership, but also new construction vs existing bldgs. > > grace h. kim > schemata workshop > (sent via mobile messaging) > > ---- Original message ---- > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:39:28 -0500 > From: R Philip Dowds rpdowds [at] comcast.net > > I think the cohousing future is just as robust (or not) as the future of > housing generally. Having previously said that there is no particular > reason for cohousing to be cheaper than ?regular? housing, I will modify > that dogma a bit: > > Multifamily housing ? starting with ?townhouses? or ?row houses?, and > progressing to ?apartment buildings? ? has a significant competitive cost > edge on single family housing. On a per square foot basis, it?s cheaper to > develop, cheaper to operate, pays lower taxes, and so on. But Americans > don?t want to live in ?apartment buildings?, they want to live single > family, in the burbs. And indeed, some cohousing developments look and feel > very suburban ? by the intent of the founders, of course. > > But the cohousing philosophy of live-closer-and-share-more is highly > conducive to a multi-family construction solution. If cohousing has a > unique and enduring role to play in affordability, it might be that of > further de-stigmatizing multi-family configurations, such that (a) more > zoning ordinances would allow for it, and (b) more middle class households > would find it acceptable: a step up, not a step back. > > Philip Dowds AIA > Cornerstone Cohousing > Cambridge, MA > y > _________________________________________________________________ > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ > > > -- Diane Margolis 175 Richdale Av. Cambridge, MA 02140 617 354 1349
- Re: Are We Done with the Rental Issue?, (continued)
-
Re: Are We Done with the Rental Issue? Jerome Garciano, February 17 2011
- Re: Are We Done with the Rental Issue? Ingram Paperny, February 17 2011
- Re: Are We Done with the Rental Issue? Diane, February 17 2011
-
Re: Are We Done with the Rental Issue? Fred H Olson, February 17 2011
- Re: Are We Done with the Rental Issue? Diane, February 17 2011
- Re: Are We Done with the Rental Issue? R Philip Dowds, February 17 2011
-
Re: Are We Done with the Rental Issue? Jerome Garciano, February 17 2011
-
Re: Are We Done With the Rental Issue? Susan Tatelman, February 18 2011
- Re: Are We Done With the Rental Issue? David L. Mandel, February 20 2011
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.