Re: list of "waypoints" DESIGN comes first. | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Lion Kuntz (lionkuntzyahoo.com) | |
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:44:07 -0700 (PDT) |
--- Robert Moskowitz wrote: > I'm trying to put together in my mind, if not on paper, a list of > "waypoints" that we will/should encounter in moving from a group of > people who have expressed an interest in cohousing to a group of > people > actually living in cohousing. My idea is that we can aim for these > waypoints and we can also ask for increasing levels of commitment as > we > approach and pass them. > > Some of the waypoints I imagine include: > > Opt In > Verification of Financial Capability > Acquisition of Property > Design > Hiring of contractor > Construction > Move in > > If anyone can help me identify more, and/or put them in the best > order, > I'd be very grateful. Three years ago I addressed an online e-conference of 600 subscribers following an international ECOCITY meeting and told them they had the order wrong. Essentially the order you have written is the same one that individuals use to build their dream house (minus the "opt in" step) and about the same as used by developers building a spec development project of hundreds of houses (with the "opt in" moved to between construction and move in). There is no important difference if the end result is co-housing or typical urban/suburban anarchy isolationism. The thing I told them then, and I tell you now, is design preceeds all things. There are some subjects that people don't get to vote on. Gravity is not subject to concensus opinions and determines 50% or more of construction expense dealing with it. Climate is not subject to consensus, but it determines your energy costs for the lifetime of occupancy, and can easily be treble the construction costs over 30 years. In short, the home-occupant is usually not equipped to make the rational decisions about design that need to be made. R. Buckminster Fuller wrote a dozen books and travelled the globe hundreds of times lecturing that design comes first above all other priorities. Nobody got it then, and you still are not getting that. Even if you were Bill Gates, if you wanted to build your house out of cottage cheese and could afford to do so, it wouldn't work in the long run, and not even in the short run with this extreme example. With rational design the cost is no higher than it needs to be, and probably far less than you expect to pay. That in turn affects financial capability, land acquisition and building costs. Those who wouldn't opt in to rational design would have otherwise dragged you more towards cottage cheese housing than you would have been happy with in the long run, and you would be better off losing those people at the start. Opt in means opt into a design of both physical and metaphysical community. It means the housing is not an insignificant leftover to the "co" in co-housing, nor vice versa. With design paramount, that means that acquisition of property has some initial parameters, and it reciprocally means that the architecture must be flexible enough to accomodate a property of chance purchase opportunity or pre-ownership by a particpant. That means in turn that design is a set of guidlines instead of a set of blueprints, at least at this stage. Here one may need to educate themselves a bit with a stack of books from the public library, or building a stack of books for the group's own library. At the least you should expect to go through $1,000 retail value of books (whether library borrowed, or bought) which have things to say about design. A series of "salons", small gatherings, pot-luck dinner parties, or get-togethers to discuss these books can bring prospectives up to speed about what design elements are indispensible. The 20th century is a series of housing tragedies. In part the human community failure of 20th century housing has spawned a co-housing movement to repair some of the damages of 20th century thinking on the housing subject. Unfortunately, so much else is wrong with 20th century lifestyles embodied in the housing, that co-housing is a bandaid on a hemorrhage. One critic I read recently called it middle-class gated community racist enclaves, which senses a financial screening process going on under the surface. I don't agree with that critic, but there are subliminal financial screening processes at work which are embedded in 20th century failed designs. One writer in this group this day posted that there are $25,000,000 net worth in their community of 43 households. Do the math: $581,395.35 each. How many $40K/year teachers can afford to live there? $290 per square foot if the homes have 2,000 sq.ft. per dwelling. Some condos (and some co-housing is organized as condos) have higher monthly association fees than people pay monthly rent for the same sized housing in the same housing market area, and that's on top of the purchase price. Lack of planning at the design stage makes every subsequent stage cost more. One writer to this group recently bragged that solar panels are prohibited by their association rules, yet every $1 reduction in utility bills is translated into $20 increase in resale value of the home. Those rules design-in perpetual high utility bills and lower resale values to boot. http://www.realgoods.com/calsolar/economics.html Better to design-in rational energy policy and design-out people who would saddle you with those kinds of rules. You will have more money in your pocket from day one and more money in your pocket the day you sell out. By the way, Solar Power can be a strong selling point. Here's a building that gets a premium because it has a Gold LEED Energy Efficiency Rating, and charges $2,475 for a studio to $$8,800 a month rents. (About five and a half years paying rents equals the $581,395.35 equity in the above mentioned DC co-housing.) http://ecosyn.us/1/Solaire/Big_Green_1.JPG http://ecosyn.us/1/Solaire/Big_Green_2.JPG http://ecosyn.us/1/Solaire/Big_Green_3.JPG http://ecosyn.us/1/Solaire/Big_Green_4.JPG http://ecosyn.us/1/Solaire/Big_Green_5.JPG http://ecosyn.us/1/Solaire/Big_Green_6.JPG http://www.rent.com/rentals/new-york/new-york-city/new-york/battery-park/ The Solaire (more info) ""Rent Stabilized", "Full Service and Amenities, Environmentally Engineered"" City: New York Neighborhood: Battery Park, Tribeca Rent Range: $2475-$8800 /mo Unit Type: Studio-3 Bed 1-3 Bath Pets: Cat OK, Dog OK http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2003-03-14/134.asp "... So far, the residential tower has about 80 prospective tenants on a preliminary waiting list. It will offer market-rate rents, with studio apartments expected to rent for about $2,400 a month and one bedrooms starting at $3,000. ..." Not that I am advocating SOLAIRE's building design. I use it as an example of missed opportunities and flawed design logic. Sometimes you need to walk through the disasters to learn what NOT to do. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sincerely, Lion Kuntz Santa Rosa, California, USA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.ecosyn.us/Welcome/ http://www.ecosyn.us/Interesting/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-
list of "waypoints" Robert Moskowitz, May 18 2006
- Re: list of "waypoints" DESIGN comes first. Lion Kuntz, May 18 2006
-
Re: list of "waypoints" Eileen McCourt, May 19 2006
-
Re: list of "waypoints" Sharon Villines, May 20 2006
- Re: list of "waypoints" Eileen McCourt, June 3 2006
-
Re: list of "waypoints" Sharon Villines, May 20 2006
- Re: list of "waypoints" Mac Thomson, May 19 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.