|Re: Low-cost Cohousing||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Grace Kim (graceschemataworkshop.com)|
|Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 18:18:05 -0700 (PDT)|
I think the question is why low-cost? While I understand that lower cost homes is what allows for income diversity, that stems from idea that everyone has to pay the same cost/sf for their home. I think affordability and low-cost are at times two different sides of a coin. To achieve affordability, not only do there need to be low/moderate income households who need/want these homes, but collective intention - like everything else in cohousing. But people who can afford, but want their homes to cost less, that's a different priority/need that should not be conflated with affordability (which is federally defined as no more than 30% of household income should be spent on housing). I understand that people want to spend far less than 30%, but if that's the measure/value. Its hard to have any other priority remain in light of that. Community intention (not just altruistic "we will feel good if we can do this") will help everyone hold that value while still trying to balance other project priorities. In WA state, we build affordable housing (for low/moderate income households) to high sustainability standards. But that means we don't build this housing as cheaply as possible. We recognize that the non-profit housing operators will not be making significant improvements/upgrades every 7-10 years, so the quality of what is being built from day 1 is actually higher than market rate housing in our area. When you are talking about buying a house - where a big priority is about lower home purchase price versus higher values as a community (like income diversity, racial diversity, sustainability)....it gets harder for individuals to justify to themselves why they might want to help subsidize another household or to prioritize that similar to/over sustainability measures. I also think there needs to be a paradigm shift in people's behavior. "I want to install solar panels because they look cool/demonstrate my responsibility to the planet" doesn't make sense when viewed in opposition to "I don't want to change my behavior to reduce the my environmental footprint" - i.e., turning off lights, reducing phantom loads, minimizing car trips, minimizing flying, upgrading building envelope and windows vs. spending money on solar panels. These are hard decisions and priorities to juggle or hold in tension/balance. But I think it helps to be really clear about what values are held as a community intention. grace h. kim aia | schemata workshop, inc. principal pronouns: she/her 1720 12th avenue seattle wa 98122 p 206.285.1589 c 206.795.2470 schemataworkshop.com Watch my TED talk at TED.com Please note: Schemata Workshop employees are currently working remotely given the current public health situation. Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 05:20:20 +0000 (UTC) From: Brian Bartholomew <bartholomew.brian [at] yahoo.com> > what group of potential cohousers will take advantage of this? There are plenty of "homeless" people who already are able to afford a tiny amount of home in the form of tent cities. But it's illegal for them to rent porta-potties, or build a shared toilet/shower building like a camping area. Illegal, not 'costs too much'. Soon there will be more homeless, after people who have been banned from working for a few months are evicted from their homes and cars by bankruptcy. Cost is a Red Herring. It was never about cost, it was about legal prohibitions. It only appeared like cost because cohousing self-developers could hire architects and real estate lawyers and so forth to press their case. Brian
- Re: Low-cost Cohousing, (continued)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.