Reflections on cohousing without a developer
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>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>First, a review of how New&nbsp;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 &amp; confusions &amp;<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 &amp;<BR>houses &amp; 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".&nbsp;&nbsp; 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&nbsp;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 &amp; =
some=20
money-saving opportunities.&nbsp; 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>&nbsp;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.&nbsp; I know the architect<BR>had some =
frustations=20
in working with us: you might ask him directly: =
Peter<BR>Quinn.<BR><BR>&nbsp;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 &amp; layouts of houses (a couple of two-bedroom styles, and =
a<BR>couple=20
of 3-4 bedroom styles, with detached &amp; attached configurations). =
People knew=20
they would need to pay for customizations. See above for more on the =
pros &amp;=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 &amp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.