Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Cohousing mainstream

[Greg Dunn (MyLists]

I'm not quite sure what your point is, though I'm not personally too
worried about people staying away because they feel excluded. One of the
nice things about cohousing is that it's reproducible on a very local
scale, so there can be room for many different sorts of communities with
many different viewpoints and practices.

Right now the typically arduous process of getting into cohousing keeps
many people out who would otherwise choose to be in.  In the future I
think we will see developers building cohousing developments just like
they do condo developments.[1] The community selection, bonding, and
group-process development that now occurs during the planning and
development phases will need to be achieved by other means, but I think
there are ways to do that. More of the melding (or not) will likely
occur *after* move-in. That might seem like a difficult and disruptive
way to do it; but on the other hand, if a given family decides they
don't fit in with a given community, maybe it won't be quite so hard to
find another one.  

We can argue the pros and cons of such a change, but I think it will
happen no matter what we argue. In the Bay Area, there is clearly far
more demand for cohousing than there is supply. Units rent or sell
rapidly, for very good prices.  Sooner or later a developer or two will
(a) be attracted to the concept, and (b) decide it can be done
profitably.  With each community that gets built, succeeds financially,
and integrates nicely into its surrounding neighborhood, the barriers to
building the next community will be lowered.

Will it ever be mainstream?  Wouldn't surprise me. Americans have long
been in love with privacy and independence, but as with any new toy, the
novelty eventually wears off and you begin to see the limitations. But
then, who cares whether cohousing becomes mainsteam of not?  

Greg Dunn

[1] My father, who was a largely self-taught architect, in the late
1960's designed the housing units for a huge apartment complex in
Mesquite, Texas (outskirts of Dallas) which had its own community
center, complete with indoor basketball court (and youth leagues), two
outdoor soccer fields, a variety of recreational equipment, meeting
rooms, bridge clubs and etc., all under the coordination of a social
director. It wasn't quite cohousing, but it seems to have been very
popular indeed.  I lived there with him for about a year in 1973-74. I
have no idea why its developer took a chance on the concept, and
unfortunately my dad has passed away so I can't get details.

 


-----Original Message-----
From: cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org
[mailto:cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org] On Behalf Of Rob Sandelin
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 5:13 PM
To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
Subject: [C-L]_Cohousing mainstream



Anyone who seriously believes that cohousing will ever be mainstream in
America is, in my opinion, a dreamer. It is simply too out of balance
with how THE VAST MAJORITY, chooses to live. So I would not worry about
whether or not cohousing exclusivity by selection criteria  is going to
limit cohousings ability to be mainstream.

Cohousing is based on a set of principals which simply are not
attractive to lots of people. So we will always be in a odd minority of
the culture, those who choose to live cooperatively. Out of that
cooperative minority, cohousing currently makes up the majority of new
cooperative living units, and has done so for the last several years.
Cohousing comprises 8 Out of the 10 largest Intentional Communities of
ALL kinds in the NW.

But to put this into perspective, in 2002 in WA state, 420,014 existing
homes were sold. 5 of those were cohousing.

Rob Sandelin
Sky Valley Environments  <http://www.nonprofitpages.com/nica/SVE.htm>
Field skills training for student naturalists Floriferous [at] msn.com


-----Original Message-----
From: cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org
[mailto:cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org]On Behalf Of
racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 6:59 AM
To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
Subject: RE: [C-L]_Re: Racism



>From Racheli
Tucson

>[Sheila] But I think this list has just proved that people with certain

>opinions *will* encounter roadblocks to equal access to housing--at 
>least to cohousing. Cohousing groups admit freely to a variety of 
>strategies, both legal and illegal, for keeping out people who don't 
>match a list of criteria ("values" or "core values").

I can't speak for other groups, but in our case, we've tried to make
sure people saw our major documents (including mission statement and
goals). Then they could decide for themselves whether they'd fit. The
idea that a community shouldn't be allowed to share commonality (of
values, for example)- because it's, somehow, "exclusive", sounds false
to me.  IMO a certain level commonality is necessary in order to be able
to work together.  For example: people who reject the idea that
cooperation is a good way to work with other people might prove a
serious road-block in the decision making process. I also don't happen
to believe that allowing for the fact that people have a right to
differences, political and otherwise, entails that we should feel
comfortable having all varieties in our immediate neighborhood. Having
said that, I do believe that how people behave in everyday life is often
quite different (and often inconsisten with) from their  stated
politics:  Some people with "impecable" politics (including  beliefs in
power sharing etc.) might in reality prove to be control  freaks.  And
people who are "fundamentalists" or whatever in terms  of their religion
might prove to be nice and cooperative. I thought that what Lynn
suggested was right on target: Cohousing communities should strive to
give good/accurate information about who they are, and then let people
decide for themselves.  (In  smaller and more intimate intentional
communities I feel it's justified to have stricter standards).

>The cohousing idea cannot become a mainstream choice in our country as 
>long as it is treated as a refuge for the people who know best how to 
>live, and as long as those people protect their refuge by keeping out 
>people who are different from themselves. More importantly, we ought 
>not to repeat the old error of provincialism, even if this time it is 
>provincialism of a superior kind.

I don't feel that I know "best" how to live, and I think it's unfair to
generalize that way.  I might know what suits *me* best, and would like
to live with/near people who share some of the same perceptions and
attitudes regarding, for example: how to make decisions; how to resolve
conflict, etc.  This doesn't necessarily mean I'm feeling superior
towards people who make other choices.  I agree with the idea that
certain types of differences should be welcome, because too much
homogeneity is detrimental to personal growth.  (For me, the Israeli
kibbutz is a classic example of a community-type where there was great
pressure to create uniformity, with truly negative results).

R.
-----------------------------------------------------------
racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com
-----------------------------------------------------------

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


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