Re: Private Unit Design - a cost/benefit question | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Robert Wiener (rwienernetquarters.net) | |
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 10:05:17 -0700 (MST) |
Interesting questions. I agree with those who are saying that cohousing needs to be easier and more affordable to be more mainstream. At the same time, people who can afford customization of one kind or another will be turned off if they can't express themselves and have at least some choices. "Housism" is pretty ingrained in our society, and the shape, size, style, etc. of our houses is still so important - though cohousing teaches us that it is really the community that matters. It will take some time to change American attitudes to housing. In some markets, however, we need people who may be a little more individualistic. In many parts of Maine, for example, there just may not be enough households who want "by the book" cohousing. With the core group that became Two Echo, we had a majority of people who wanted to design their own houses. Frankly, it just seemed like it would be too difficult to reach consensus on designing the whole community at once. Though we didn't know the term at the time, the Lot Development Model was an obvious choice, for simplicity's sake. For similar reasons, we chose not to pursue affordability subsidies. For a group of amateurs, with a willing developer, but one who was not particularly interested in cohousing, the prospect seemed too daunting. So all the houses at Two Echo are basically custom houses; households can choose their designers, designs, builders, etc. We have design guidelines and a DRC (design review committee) that are working out very well. The houses are good looking and compatible with a lot of variety. They are undoubtedly more expensive than we could have spent using the other approach. Because timing rarely works out, using the same builders or suppliers for several houses has not really panned out as a means of saving money, though we thought it might. Several local lumber yards are creating credit accounts whereby an amount equal to 2% of materials sold for Two Echo houses is available credit for the community to use when we build the Common House. (That is a drawback that has been cited concerning lot development communities: Though twelve households are living here, the community still has six of twenty-seven lots left to sell, so we have to wait for the common house unless we decide to take on some debt. It may come to that, but there will some long discussions and maybe some private donations to cover interest costs if we want to get going.) My social conscience grumbles a little at times - Two Echo is solidly middle class. We have had households leave because buying existing houses can be considerably cheaper than building new here. Nevertheless, we are pleased to be here, and as the first and only community in Maine, I'm not sure we'd be here yet by some other method. Anyway, sorry to digress. It seems important to adapt development and design choices to local circumstances and the personalities involved in the group. All of the ideas put out on this listserve and elsewhere is undoubtedly invaluable to many new groups, though ultimately the choices are theirs. Rob Wiener Berrins [at] aol.com wrote: > This is a tough issue. I can see both sides. > On the one hand, having standardized house plans would have greatly > simplified our lives these past two years. At Pathways we went with > customizable house designs off four basic plans. It took (just a guestimate > here) a year's worth of cohousing meetings and family time to deal with, > created a ton of difficult, emotional and purely subjective decisions (house > colors was a big one) and slowed down construction with all the variations > and change orders (despite heavy surcharges after the purchase and sales > agreements were signed). > On the other hand, as we begin to move in within a week or two, watching > our own homes and those of our neighbors take shape is an unbelievable > feeling. It's fun seeing the choices others made; it's a small reflection of > each family. And for all the time and money we're sinking into this, I like > feeling that I had some control over what my house will look like and how it > will operate. > > Living in cohousing is the main goal of everyone, orginal occupant or > not. Those moving into communities after they are built may not get their > ideal house, but they weren't there during the design process and didn't > spend 3-5 years of their lives getting it built; the reality is that getting > to design your own home is an option open only to the builders. It's a > really nice option. Yes, people drop out and move. Families change and > their housing needs with them. On the other hand, while many houses change > over, many others don't. Many families will live in the houses they designed > for decades, perhaps generations. > That said, I can't imagine it will be possible to predict a mix of houses > that will remain ideal through the years. I do know that every family at > Pathways will have the house size they need now and think they will need for > several years. Only one family dropped out after we began picking out house > sizes, and they were replaced just before construction began, so the new > family's house size was changed in time. Perhaps a compromise could be > reached; at a minimum, let each household pick the number of bedrooms they > need. Otherwise, it will be difficult to attract people to a project if they > can't get the house size they need. Bedrooms can always be added later, > especially if the houses are designed for easy enlargement. > A few other customizations could be allowed for purely objective needs, > like health concerns (type of heating/air filtration/air conditioning/low > volatile materials) or accessibility (ramps/bathrooms/kitchen > counters/appliances). These could be presented as packages (eg, the "heathly > home" or "accessible" option) to decrease the number of decisions and > decrease the complexity of the project. Leave the purely subjective stuff, > like house colors, trim and floor choices, and the design features, like > floor plans and bathrooms, to the professionals. That will save a ton of > time, emotional upheavals and money. > > -Roger
- Re: Private Unit Design - a cost/benefit question, (continued)
- Re: Private Unit Design - a cost/benefit question PattyMara, February 11 2000
- Re: Private Unit Design - a cost/benefit question Berrins, February 12 2000
- Re: Private Unit Design - a cost/benefit question Ann Zabaldo, February 12 2000
- Fw: Private Unit Design - a cost/benefit question Lydia & Ray Ducharme, February 12 2000
- Re: Private Unit Design - a cost/benefit question Robert Wiener, February 13 2000
- Re: Private Unit Design - a cost/benefit question Merlin Porter-Border, February 14 2000
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.