RE: Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle?
From: Rob Sandelin (floriferousmsn.com)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 22:11:03 -0600 (MDT)
There are cohousing groups which are based upon a particular  religious
doctrine, one established Mennonite group that I know of, and a forming
Jewish Cohousing group is still underway as far as I know of. So I am not
sure that cohousing is by definition is ideology free. There was a Christian
based cohousing group in Texas at one point, not sure if they built or not.
Needless to say, these religious-based cohousing groups have been soundly
rejected by some of the folks in the cohousing movement, but that does not
keep them from being cohousing. In one case, it just made them drop off any
contact with cohousing organizer types.

 The primary difference between communes and cohousing in my estimation is
economic. Communes are setup so that all the primary resources are owned by
the group, whereas cohousing some of the resources are group owned, the
housing is privately owned. Communes are group financed, Cohousing is bank
financed (Mortgaged). Cohousing is centrally planned construction, communes
are not generally so  planned (but there are a few). Income is typically a
group resource in a commune, not so in cohousing.

Besides these differences there are many similularities in function and
process. Some people from both sides, communes and cohousing, are
uncomfortable having things in common, and I have personally experienced
this discomfort in both settings. There are still lots of communes about,
but few large ones in the US anymore. In fact, Cohousing seems to be the
growth of the communities movement, and seems to make up the majority of the
communities formed greater than 12 households in the past decade.

Rob Sandelin
Once up a time community traveler
Resident 12 years Sharingwood

-----Original Message-----
From: cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org
[mailto:cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org]On Behalf Of Forbes Jan
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 5:56 PM
To: 'cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org'
Subject: RE: [C-L]_Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle?


Dear Kay and others

Thanks for this detailed and thoughtful response.  I'm sticking my neck out
here too, drawing on rough impressions, hoping I don't touch too many raw
nerves.

There are many different forms of communes and some may be closed
communities, exclusive to particular groups with certain ideological
beliefs.  However even in communes some ideological beliefs are inclusive
rather than exclusive e.g. Quaker and Rudolph Steiner communities.

Ironically, you say communes tend to be ideologically driven and then you go
on to elaborate about cohousing ideology. :-)  Cohousing is ideologically
driven or at least many of the early bofaellesskaber in Denmark were.  While
many cohousing communities were started by left wing environmentalists, they
have evolved into inclusive communities that do not exclude people on the
basis of religious or political beliefs.  As you say, right wing people (and
maybe people whose religion is other than Christianity) also live in
cohousing because they value community and care for the environment.

Cohousing communities have their own design features that have evolved over
time and that set them aside from communes.  The ideology of cohousing
appears to include valuing environmental sustainability, community and
inclusiveness.  Also cohousing has its own history and influences, that draw
on but are distinct from communes.

The main difference between cohousing and communes is in the design.
Communes, particularly as they were conceived in the 1960's and 70's, are
based on households (pods or cells) comprised of single cells(bed sitters
really)and shared common areas under the one roof rather than separate
private households based for the most part on kinship.  However, for all I
know there may be groups with cohousing design features that identify as
communes.  Also, even within the commune design (Svanholme for example) it
is possible for nuclear family groups to choose to live together in one pod
if that is their choice.

While cohousing and most communes differ, cohousing is undeniably a form of
communal living, an unpopular idea because of the connotations of the term
commune. There is a clear link and some overlap.

Perhaps when the definition is unclear, a good approach is to let
communities decide for themselves whether they identify as either as a
cohousing or a commune.  Another cohousing ideology after all is letting
people have their say and respecting their personal choices about how they
live their lives.

The common meal, important as it is to many communities, is not essential to
cohousing.  There are other shared activities that are also community
building.  Seniors only cohousing in Denmark on the whole do not have the
common meal.

Many people in age-integrated cohousing would not see these as true
cohousing.  But then how many have actually experienced what they are like?
By their own definition, these communites are cohousing.  If we adhere to
the cohousing principle of inclusiveness these seniors only groups are
cohousing.

Different interpretations will cause cohousing to evolve and change over
time. The strength is that by adapting to changing circumstances it is
unlikely to become outdated. It may even evolve a completely different
identity, just as cohousing has a different identity from communes.


Jan Forbes
Hobart, Tasmania

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Argyle [mailto:argyle [at] mines.utah.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 15 October 2002 7:19 PM
To: cohousing-L
Subject: Re: [C-L]_Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle?


> ... the subject of communes / co-housing
> came up in school today.  I couldn't really explain the difference - any
> comments out there?   > Irene Stupka

Nobody else has responded, so I will.  Despite my lack of qualification to
say anything whatsoever about communes.  Check the archives, other people
have addressed the question previously.

My impression (strictly my impression) is that communes tend to be
ideologically driven, and one of the ideologies frequently involves
income-sharing.  Cohousing isn't, and doesn't.

The elements of cohousing, as defined by Chuck Durrett & Katie McCamant, who
invented the word as a translation for the Danish term, are * common
facilities, * neighborhood design, * private dwellings, * participatory
process, & * resident management.  In other words, resident interaction is
encouraged but not mandatory, and the community is run by the people who
live there.  (Interestingly, common meals, which play such a large role in
so many communities, are not part of the definition.)

That's it.  No other ideology required.

That doesn't mean other ideologies don't get unpacked before the moving van
is out of the parking lot.  People who think interacting with neighbors is a
Good Thing and who believe in really, really, really local government (you
can't get much more local than fifty feet down the path) frequently share
other, usually liberal, baggage in common. Common facilities lend themselves
to other goals, from shared recycling bins, to a community-run business
(which can blur the line into income-sharing).

However, you'll find people attracted to cohousing for whom being
environmentally conscientious is tossing their aluminum cans in the dumpster
instead of out the car window.  People who agree with Heinlein that an armed
society is a polite society.  Who will show you the tattoo on their behind
before they'll show you their income tax return.  I even hear rumors about
cohousers who vote Republican  ;).

Occasionally people assume that because they hold values A and B, which mesh
neatly together, and other people hold value A, those people must also hold
value B -- it's a "community value."  And if those people don't hold value
B, they can't be very committed to value A.  This can be a real test of a
community's commitment to diversity.  If it's handled badly, you get
accusations that some neighbor "doesn't belong" in cohousing (been there).

-- Of course, a commitment to diversity is one of those extra baggage
things, that since for me it goes with cohousing like peanut butter with
jelly, I assume of course it does for everybody else too ....

Kay
argyle [at] mines.utah.edu
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.