RE: Sweat Equity | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: BPaiss (BPaissaol.com) | |
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 95 13:53 CDT |
The Joys and Challenges of Sweat Equity Martin and Mardi Tracy's eloquent and extensive reply to my breif statement about sweat equity makes several important points: 1. Sweat equity is not only possible, but in response to Rob's eariler reply, has been done by many, many other intentional communities (though on a limited basis in CoHousing communities) over the past 25 years. 2. Martin's description of what he and his wife have done and are doing - <<attended two summer camps on house building, allowing a full year to build the house, foregoing such items as cable TV, microwave ovens, dish washers, European vacations, taken about five years (to save the money)>> highlights the planning and committment required of them to actually build their home. I applaud their efforts and look forward to visiting them in their self built home. For those who can or want to do this I have nothing but admiration. However, very, very few people I have met in the CoHousing world are prepared or interested in this approach. Most people are trying to save some money in the construction of their home or would like to know they had a hand in the construction. It is this middle ground that is so difficult to integrate into the cionstruction schedule of a muli-million dollar real estate project. The guideline that we (Wonderland Builders in this case) have given to CoHousers wanting to be involved in construction are very straight forward. They must be treated as any other subcontractor and "perform" to the schedule, quality and specifications of the other trades. Because of the interconnectedness of the building process (Sing along...the floor joists connected to the sub floor...) the work or lack thereof usually impacts several other trades. The option mentioned by Martin that: <cohousing groups could be organized around the purchase of the land, leaving the houses to be the responsibility of each family, within certain architectural guidelines, and on no particular schedule.> would allow for much greater flexibility in the building and design process. This model also brings with it a very different scenairo on several other fronts. To highlight a few, it changes how long people would be living in a construction zone; the potential savings from bulk purchases; the structure and allocation of homeowner dues over the construction period; the funding and timing of common facilities construction and the relationship to any lending institutions you may need during this phase. The bottom line is sweat equity is a realistic option if the group makes it a high priority and structures the development around it. Like most things in this process it is a choice that brings with it many joys and challenges. My only suggestion is for groups to make it a conscious and educated choice. Happy Building, Bill Paiss bpaiss [at] aol.com
- Re: sweat equity, (continued)
- Re: sweat equity William Johnson, August 10 1994
- Re: sweat equity Kevin Wolf, August 10 1994
- Re: sweat equity Stuart Staniford-Chen, August 10 1994
- Re: Sweat equity David L. Mandel, March 31 1995
- RE: Sweat Equity BPaiss, April 4 1995
- Re: Re: Sweat Equity Harry Pasternak, April 5 1995
- RE: Sweat Equity Martin Tracy, April 5 1995
-
Sweat Equity Elizabeth Cobb, July 5 2003
- RE: Sweat Equity Rob Sandelin, July 5 2003
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.