Re: Defining "the cohousing principle" | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: vbradova (vbradovabestweb.net) | |
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:34:36 -0700 (MST) |
Since most people responding here to Anthony Cook's querry went one way, I'd like to go another way, and lend some support to what Anthony was saying. First of all, I don't think that having member businesses on site is against cohousing. I think what the Coho book was trying to say is that communal business turns the project into something else. Communal business being something the community as a whole operates. If a member chooses to work from home, say as a consultant, or have a mail order business, or whatever, this is fine, just as it is fine in conventional developments (with the exception of running a business that significantly disrupts the neighborhood). As for some sacred cows. Resident participation: I think that to design one's own community is part of what attracts people to cohousing, and in the process people build community as well as create a design that fits them personally. A development that has no such involvement I would argue is not cohousing -- unless the developer hires someone who organizes the future residents who then proceed to have at least some input into the project and are ready to manage it when it is complete. All the same, however, I think that it would be a good future direction if cohousing groups did not try to be their own developers and did not try to control the whole process down to every minute detail (unless the group that forms has a very specific interest in the development process; some people may take it on as a hobby). Many cohousing groups take way too long to develop the community, and risk falling apart because the process is so long and cumbersome. I think any person who wants to build their own house and have significant input into how it's built expects 2-3 years to spend on it. No problem. Sometimes it can run over. But to spend 6-10 years!? That is completely unreasonable; and when it falls apart in the middle and eats up people's money in addition to the time invested, well... talk about cruel and unusual punishment! Cohousing will not become more popular if this pattern is anything but the very rare exception. The pioneers have blazed the trail, now is the time to fine-tune the process so that things can get done in a few years, or faster. And I understand that people like Jim Leach are making this possible. Unfortunately for those of us who do not live in Boulder and do not have Jim Leach up North Broadway to rely on, are still pretty much on our own... There are a couple of other sacred cows that our group in particular wants to do away with. Community dining. Pioneered in Denmark, really appeals to some, but frankly, does not appeal to a lot of others. I am married to a guy who hates eating in public. We do a lot of take outs but rarely stay to eat on premises. No way do we want a community where common eating is de rigeur, nor do we want to invest in a commercial kitchen. I think community dining ought to be downplayed when portraying cohousing to the public, and relegated to a list of options that groups consider, among things like greenhouses or permeable pavement. Consensus process and reliance on many community-wide meetings. Myself, I have had to endure many meetings both in workplace and voluntary groups, and have gradually turned into a meeting hater. The clincher was a Quaker business meeting after church I once attended -- top notch process, but the vast majority of issues were of the kind that could easily have been taken care of by a conference call some evening. Instead, we all sat for 2+ hours in a darkling hall while outside the most glorious indian summer afternoon unfolded and passed. That was my Scarlet O'Hara moment, I swore never again! :-) When I read here about people spending a whole day in a meeting to talk about "values", it gives me the willies. Go hiking instead, for crying out loud. Do what you love together... In any case, this is what we want to attempt: to use sociocracy with a concerted effort to minimize meetings, to break into smaller groups for the decision making, to do business online, phone, etc., and when we meet, to meet for pleasure as much as possible. Cohousing, to move into the mainstream, must appeal to people who are less than what I call "pathologically sociable." (I am joshing! :-) Most folks do not want their life to be swept up in community activities, the way Kay from Utah describes. Most folks want neighborliness that does not become a stone around one's neck. Additional argument against consensus is that it bogs down past a certain group size. Cohousing communities can reap the most benefits when many families pool their resources and make the economy of scale possible. Well, that is about it. Just needed to get this off my mind. Best -- Vera in NY
- Re: Defining "the cohousing principle", (continued)
- Re: Defining "the cohousing principle" Fred H. Olson, March 25 2000
- RE: Defining "the cohousing principle" Rob Sandelin, March 25 2000
- Re: Defining "the cohousing principle" Berrins, March 25 2000
- Re: Defining "the cohousing principle" Lydia & Ray Ducharme, March 28 2000
- Re: Defining "the cohousing principle" vbradova, March 29 2000
- Re: Defining "the cohousing principle" Maggi Rohde, March 29 2000
- RE: Defining "the cohousing principle" Lashbrook, Stephan, March 29 2000
- Re: Defining "the cohousing principle" Jose Marquez, March 29 2000
- Re: Defining "the cohousing principle" Jose Marquez, March 29 2000
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.