Re: Re: Affordable CoHousing | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Tom Ponessa (tomp![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 21:59 CST |
Russell Mawby writes: To add my two cents to the discussion on affordable cohousing, I mostly want to agree with Joani's comments. The idea of affordability has to be prefaced with the question of what exactly it is one is trying to afford. . . I must add, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, that it is interesting reading about all these subsidies that might be available, when, from a Canadian perspective, _all_ housing in the U.S. looks subsidized. We get no tax breaks whatsoever for our mortgages up here. And if you want to see an overheated housing market, consider that Toronto was for a number of years the most expensive city in North America to live in. Of course, many people cheered that fact - world class, and all that - but house prices are still in the $200,000 plus range for something that is more deserving of a can of gasoline than a "for sale" sign. Ask Habitat for Humanity about their experiences in Toronto a few years ago. . . That being said, we do have some really great downtown neighbourhoods, with hardly any of the mess that many U.S. cities seem to be in. That perhaps is why our (CoHoSoc) current approach to affordable "cohousing" is aimed at developing ways to share ownership of houses - probably via some sort of mortgage instrument that allows transferability. Demographics as well as economics supports the search for ways of housing smaller house- holds, especially when downtown neighbourhoods are relatively desirable places to live for most small households. Sharing could take many forms, from roomates to separate apartments in a single structure, but regardless, all of my experiences with sharing ownership suggest that much more than just the structure gets shared, up to and including shared meals a la coho. We are also addressing co-ownership with this project, simply because there are a few such projects out there (+/- 15 unit buildings) and they seem to be a perfect model for cohousing projects - mostly because they enable community-based control over (re)sales. This not only helps shape resident selection, which is an important *and* dangerous issue for such tightly knit groups, but can also provide a mechanism for defusing speculation, hopefully leading to long-term affordability. Believe it or not, the banks are very interested in all this - demographics and shifting markets probably being the reason, as are the lawyers (helpfully so, so far. . .). Our hope is that by coming at it from below so to speak (sharing a house is a relatively safe, normal behaviour) we can open the door for more "radical" ownership options in the future. A spin off from this is a proposal for a Community Building Loan Fund that can use investors money as a seed for innovative community development projects - yes, cohousing. British Columbia already has a similar animal -> Co Housing Investment Equity Fund (CHIEF) - contact Alan Carpenter at (604) 574- 1545 for more info. I know that such things exist in the US, and if anyone could send me info. or a contact for the Northern California Communty Fund, we'd appreciate it. I also think that Cardiff Place Cohousing in Victoria used outside investors buying units to rent out as a way of introducing affordability - Alan would know more about this. As far as Canada being a model of affordability through government support, well, those days are numbered, and as someone who is quite active in non-profit housing (social housing), I say "it's about time". The programs certainly got a lot of units built, but at about three times the cost of private market housing (largely because of all the consultants, housing managers and so on, not to mention the bureaucratic delays along the way). We built ourselves a dinosaur that eventually was only good at building 300 unit highrises, but with an endless trail of strings attached dictating who could live in which unit, and for how long, and so on. I must add, however, that some of the best housing our society has ever built also came out of those programs, largely the small (max 50 unit) non-profit projects that directly addressed residents needs - usually special needs - in other words, the places that perhaps most resemble the form and process of cohousing. So in the end, how to get affordable cohousing? Think about affordability as being more than just cheaper versions of the same old thing - affordable means many different things. It seems to me that if cohousers can't figure out how to address the particular elements that go into affording the places we live, then no one can. Russell Mawby - CoHoSoc - <russell_mawby [at] tvo.org>
- Re: Affordable cohousing, (continued)
- Re: Affordable cohousing David L. Mandel, March 16 1995
- Re: Affordable Cohousing Mark Frauenglass, March 16 1995
- Re: Affordable CoHousing Joaniblank, March 17 1995
- Re: Affordable CoHousing Rob Sandelin, March 20 1995
- Re: Re: Affordable CoHousing Tom Ponessa, March 20 1995
- Re: Affordable CoHousing Rob Sandelin, March 21 1995
- Re: Affordable CoHousing John Gear, March 21 1995
- Re: Affordable CoHousing vicky de monterey, March 21 1995
- Re: Affordable CoHousing Mark Frauenglass, March 28 1995
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.