Reflections on cohousing without a developer | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Jim Snyder-Grant (jimsgnewview.org) | |
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:51:00 -0700 (MST) |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01BF7496.9E343040 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everyone: I wrote the stuff below recently in response to an email from Diane = Simpson, who is getting ready to write an article for cohousing magazine = about working with developers. There seemed to be a lot of stuff in what = I wrote that wouldn't fit into her article, but might be of interest to = the list, so I thought I would pass it on.=20 First, a review of how New View (Acton MA) worked with developers and = other professionals. We did at one point in our history work with a developer on a site in = South Acton. However, he was not committed in any paticular way to our group = or to cohousing, and he ended up developing the site on his own, without us. = That was one of our low points as a group, when we lost hope of moving into = that site. By that time, we had already assembled a team consisting of an = architect, a development consultant, a lawyer, and various allied professionals. All = of them were deeply interested and committed to the cohousing idea. This = being the early 90s in Boston, none of them had first-hand cohousing = experience. When we got control of our final site in West Acton, we also hired a = builder, who had extensive experience in multi-family construction, but no particular interest or experience with cohousing. We got through the development process with some stumbles & confusions & cost overruns; but with no lawsuits, bankruptcies, or sabotage. I don't know if I would do anything differently. We are all here, people = & houses & common house, happy enough, only one turnover in 4 years. Who = knows what would have happened on a different route? There seem to be plenty = of ways for cohousing groups to fail. Our route was one that worked. On the other hand, there are certainly some scars left from the process = that I wish we had had some of way of avoiding in the first place. However, I = am still very unsure what we should have done differently. The cost-overruns are probably the single biggest problem that continues = to effect most of us. They were caused by a few inter-related factors: A) Determination to go ahead in the face of risks. Our West Acton site had many issues such as an iffy = septic-field-location situation, a seller who needed a lot of cash up front, a confusing permitting situation related to the interplay of septic capacity, afffordable housing options, and the need for some cooperation with neighbors to put the final parcel together. A traditional developer = might have said "well, this is too risky. Let's look elsewhere". Instead, = after a lot of discussion, we said "this might be our last chance, and it could = work out well, let's go for it". This is both a strength and a weakness of working without a developer: the willingness to take big risks in the pursuit of a dream. In our case, the risks ended up increasing our = costs, but not sinking us totally. B) Customization cost. Customizations multiply costs, as many people have mentioned. You lose = some ability to reuse drawings, or buy standard parts in bulk. You also = take more time, which ends up costing money. There are also more opportunities for = mistakes, which cost money to fix or ameliorate. On the other hand, customization allows some households who can afford = it and want it to build larger homes. Larger homes absorb more of the = over-all development costs, including cost over-runs. In that way, having some = larger homes helped the smaller households. Also, I am pretty sure that some of = our households would have dropped out if we had really retreated from our commitment to allow customization. The standard units we agreed on did = not fit for everyone, but did seem a reasonable base to start from. We = did charge handily for customization: extra building fees, extra = architect fees, extra charges for adding bedrooms and adding livable = square footage. On the other hand, I think we really did not have a = group sense of how much extra time this was all going to take. But, would we have wanted to move in sooner, if we had known that it would = mean that the base unit houses would probably have been even more expensive, = and that some households would have dropped out? I don't know.. C) Builder relations. In an effort to bring down costs, we asked our lawyer and architect to negotiate very sternly with our builder over the base costs. This came = back to bite us in some ways: any extras later cost more; and after a while = the builder lost interest in working with us creatively on cost-reductions, = and we lost time & some money-saving opportunities. I am sure that if we = had been working with a cohousing developer, rather than a builder, the = dynamic could have been different: we would have surrendered more on upfront = costs, by agreeing on a developer-sized profit, but we could have saved time = and money over the longer run by smoother working relationships. But, there = were no cohousing developers in Boston. Plus, as I described above, an experienced developer might have walked away from this site in the first place; and/or insisted on fewer customizations, which might have lost us households. It's really hard for me to weigh out the pros and cons here = of any alternatives. D) Neighbor relations / permitting breaks We had some alternatives for bring costs down by building more houses on = the site. One scenario required the cooperation of a number of neighbors, = and we did not achieve an agreement with everyone we needed to. Another = scenario involved bypassing the town zoning restrictions on density by applying = to the state for what is known in Massachusetts as a 'comprehensive = permit'. This would have taken more time, and entailed some risk of getting tied = up in legal challenges as well. Also, now that we are here with 24 = households, it is hard to imagine where we would have put more households - we would have had to lose more of our lovely unbuilt common land. Again, I'm not = sure if the alternatives would have worked out better. I also don't think = working with a developer would have helped with this one. OK, back to your specific questions you asked for the article: 1) What about the inherent conflict between the slow, methodical = consensus process and the quick action-oriented development process? We handled this by authorizing committees to handle details within parameters agreed to by the group. We also had to have plenty of = meetings to handle exceptional cases that went beyond the parameters. But the key = was authorizing smaller committees. This worked for both the design = committte, which clustered around the architect, and the various development related committees that handled the various stages of the process: the = negotiating committee, the development committee, and, later during the construction process, a small liaison committee to handle = builder-to-individual-household issues. 2) Misunderstandings that result from what the group thinks it should = be deciding and what the developer (or architect) thinks he or she should decide This certainly happened from time to time, but it was not a major issue, = I think. The design committee worked closely with the architect to work = out process and content issues. Generally, if the architect made a strong reasoned recommendation, the group went along with it. I know the = architect had some frustations in working with us: you might ask him directly: = Peter Quinn. 3) confusion about what "designing your own community" really means. Do some people think they are going to get a completely custom-built home? = How do they come to understand that this is not possible? (or do they ever?) We worked in clusters with the architects to lay out base homes for 4 different sizes & layouts of houses (a couple of two-bedroom styles, and = a couple of 3-4 bedroom styles, with detached & attached configurations). = People knew they would need to pay for customizations. See above for = more on the pros & cons of the way we ended up doing customizations. Some people have suggested that so few people did NOT do customizations = that it was a waste of time & money to have base units. I think I disagree. = The final result is that the houses are similar enough in style to feel coherent, but different enough to be interesting. I wonder what would = have happened if we had originally worked with the architect and builder with = the understanding that there would be 24 different houses. I think both professionals would have run screaming away from the project, based on = what we were willing to pay. If they hadn't run away, and instead had told us = how much this would have cost, many of the residents would have run away. = As it was, we ended up working together to create a fine home for our community,and now we get to live together over the next few decades, recovering from the financial strain of the process. That's OK by me, = and so far it's OK with my neighbors as well, almost all of whom have chosen = to stick it out, despite the financial evidence from our one turnover that these houses can easily be sold for more than what we paid for them. -Jim Snyder-Grant ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01BF7496.9E343040 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#f0e8d8> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi everyone:</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I wrote the stuff below recently in = response to an=20 email from Diane Simpson, who is getting ready to write an article for = cohousing=20 magazine about working with developers. There seemed to be a lot of = stuff in=20 what I wrote that wouldn't fit into her article, but might be of = interest to the=20 list, so I thought I would pass it on. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>First, a review of how New View = (Acton MA)=20 worked with developers and other professionals.<BR><BR>We did at one = point in=20 our history work with a developer on a site in South<BR>Acton. However, = he was=20 not committed in any paticular way to our group or to<BR>cohousing, and = he ended=20 up developing the site on his own, without us. That<BR>was one of our = low points=20 as a group, when we lost hope of moving into that site.<BR><BR>By that = time, we=20 had already assembled a team consisting of an architect, = a<BR>development=20 consultant, a lawyer, and various allied professionals. All of<BR>them = were=20 deeply interested and committed to the cohousing idea. This being<BR>the = early=20 90s in Boston, none of them had first-hand cohousing experience.<BR>When = we got=20 control of our final site in West Acton, we also hired a builder, = who<BR>had=20 extensive experience in multi-family construction, but no = particular<BR>interest=20 or experience with cohousing.<BR><BR>We got through the development = process with=20 some stumbles & confusions &<BR>cost overruns; but with no = lawsuits,=20 bankruptcies, or sabotage.<BR><BR>I don't know if I would do anything=20 differently. We are all here, people &<BR>houses & common house, = happy=20 enough, only one turnover in 4 years. Who knows<BR>what would have = happened on a=20 different route? There seem to be plenty of<BR>ways for cohousing groups = to=20 fail. Our route was one that worked.<BR><BR>On the other hand, there are = certainly some scars left from the process that<BR>I wish we had had = some of way=20 of avoiding in the first place. However, I am<BR>still very unsure what = we=20 should have done differently.<BR><BR>The cost-overruns are probably the = single=20 biggest problem that continues to<BR>effect most of us. They were caused = by a=20 few inter-related factors:<BR><BR>A) Determination to go ahead in the = face of=20 risks.<BR><BR>Our West Acton site had many issues such as an iffy=20 septic-field-location<BR>situation, a seller who needed a lot of cash up = front,=20 a confusing<BR>permitting situation related to the interplay of septic=20 capacity,<BR>afffordable housing options, and the need for some = cooperation=20 with<BR>neighbors to put the final parcel together. A traditional = developer=20 might<BR>have said "well, this is too risky. Let's look elsewhere". = Instead,=20 after a<BR>lot of discussion, we said "this might be our last chance, = and it=20 could work<BR>out well, let's go for it". This is both a = strength=20 and a weakness of<BR>working without a developer: the willingness to = take big=20 risks in the<BR>pursuit of a dream. In our case, the risks ended up = increasing=20 our costs,<BR>but not sinking us totally.<BR><BR>B) Customization=20 cost.<BR><BR>Customizations multiply costs, as many people have = mentioned.=20 You lose some ability to reuse drawings, or buy standard parts in bulk. = You also=20 take more time,<BR>which ends up costing money. There are also more=20 opportunities for mistakes,<BR>which cost money to fix or = ameliorate.<BR><BR>On=20 the other hand, customization allows some households who can afford = it<BR>and=20 want it to build larger homes. Larger homes absorb more of the=20 over-all<BR>development costs, including cost over-runs. In that way, = having=20 some larger<BR>homes helped the smaller households. Also, I am pretty = sure that=20 some of our<BR>households would have dropped out if we had really = retreated from=20 our<BR>commitment to allow customization. The standard units we agreed = on did=20 not fit for everyone, but did seem a reasonable base to start from. We = did=20 charge handily for customization: extra building fees, extra architect = fees,=20 extra charges for adding bedrooms and adding livable square footage. On = the=20 other hand, I think we really did not have a group sense of how much = extra time=20 this was all going to take. But,<BR>would we have wanted to move in = sooner, if=20 we had known that it would mean<BR>that the base unit houses would = probably have=20 been even more expensive, and that some households would have dropped = out? I=20 don't know..<BR><BR>C) Builder relations.<BR><BR>In an effort to bring = down=20 costs, we asked our lawyer and architect to<BR>negotiate very sternly = with our=20 builder over the base costs. This came back<BR>to bite us in some ways: = any=20 extras later cost more; and after a while the<BR>builder lost interest = in=20 working with us creatively on cost-reductions, and<BR>we lost time & = some=20 money-saving opportunities. I am sure that if we had<BR>been = working with=20 a cohousing developer, rather than a builder, the dynamic<BR>could have = been=20 different: we would have surrendered more on upfront costs,<BR>by = agreeing on a=20 developer-sized profit, but we could have saved time and<BR>money over = the=20 longer run by smoother working relationships. But, there were<BR>no = cohousing=20 developers in Boston. Plus, as I described above, an<BR>experienced = developer=20 might have walked away from this site in the first<BR>place; and/or = insisted on=20 fewer customizations, which might have lost us<BR>households. It's = really hard=20 for me to weigh out the pros and cons here of<BR>any = alternatives.<BR><BR>D)=20 Neighbor relations / permitting breaks<BR><BR>We had some alternatives = for bring=20 costs down by building more houses on the<BR>site. One scenario required = the=20 cooperation of a number of neighbors, and we<BR>did not achieve an = agreement=20 with everyone we needed to. Another scenario<BR>involved bypassing the = town=20 zoning restrictions on density by applying to<BR>the state for what is = known in=20 Massachusetts as a 'comprehensive permit'.<BR>This would have taken more = time,=20 and entailed some risk of getting tied up<BR>in legal challenges as = well. Also,=20 now that we are here with 24 households,<BR>it is hard to imagine where = we would=20 have put more households - we would<BR>have had to lose more of our = lovely=20 unbuilt common land. Again, I'm not sure<BR>if the alternatives would = have=20 worked out better. I also don't think working<BR>with a developer would = have=20 helped with this one.<BR><BR>OK, back to your specific questions you = asked for=20 the article:<BR><BR>1) What about the inherent conflict between the = slow,=20 methodical consensus process and the quick action-oriented development=20 process?<BR><BR>We handled this by authorizing committees to handle = details=20 within<BR>parameters agreed to by the group. We also had to have plenty = of=20 meetings to<BR>handle exceptional cases that went beyond the parameters. = But the=20 key was authorizing smaller committees. This worked for both the design=20 committte, which<BR>clustered around the architect, and the various = development=20 related<BR>committees that handled the various stages of the process: = the=20 negotiating<BR>committee, the development committee, and, later during = the=20 construction<BR>process, a small liaison committee to handle=20 builder-to-individual-household<BR>issues.<BR><BR> 2) = Misunderstandings=20 that result from what the group thinks it should be<BR>deciding and what = the=20 developer (or architect) thinks he or she should<BR>decide<BR><BR>This = certainly=20 happened from time to time, but it was not a major issue, I<BR>think. = The design=20 committee worked closely with the architect to work out<BR>process and = content=20 issues. Generally, if the architect made a strong<BR>reasoned = recommendation,=20 the group went along with it. I know the architect<BR>had some = frustations=20 in working with us: you might ask him directly: = Peter<BR>Quinn.<BR><BR> 3)=20 confusion about what "designing your own community" really means. = Do<BR>some=20 people think they are going to get a completely custom-built home? = How<BR>do=20 they come to understand that this is not possible? (or do they = ever?)<BR><BR>We=20 worked in clusters with the architects to lay out base homes for = 4<BR>different=20 sizes & layouts of houses (a couple of two-bedroom styles, and = a<BR>couple=20 of 3-4 bedroom styles, with detached & attached configurations). = People knew=20 they would need to pay for customizations. See above for more on the = pros &=20 cons of the way we ended up doing customizations.<BR><BR>Some people = have=20 suggested that so few people did NOT do customizations that<BR>it was a = waste of=20 time & money to have base units. I think I disagree. The<BR>final = result is=20 that the houses are similar enough in style to feel<BR>coherent, but = different=20 enough to be interesting. I wonder what would have<BR>happened if = we had=20 originally worked with the architect and builder with = the<BR>understanding that=20 there would be 24 different houses. I think both<BR>professionals would = have run=20 screaming away from the project, based on what<BR>we were willing to = pay. If=20 they hadn't run away, and instead had told us how<BR>much this would = have cost,=20 many of the residents would have run away. As it<BR>was, we ended = up=20 working together to create a fine home for our<BR>community,and now we = get to=20 live together over the next few decades,<BR>recovering from the = financial strain=20 of the process. That's OK by me, and<BR>so far it's OK with my = neighbors=20 as well, almost all of whom have chosen to<BR>stick it out, despite the=20 financial evidence from our one turnover that<BR>these houses can easily = be sold=20 for more than what we paid for them.<BR><BR>-Jim=20 Snyder-Grant<BR><BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01BF7496.9E343040--
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.