Re: attached vs detached | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: James Kacki (jimkackimts.net) | |
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:07:53 -0700 (PDT) |
Here's another thought /question re the discussion of affordability &
attached /detached options. I've been following a couple of the links to
websites for cohousing in Switzerland and England. Both look & feel
great, but a question arises. Part of the central philosophy of
cohousing is the idea of combining the advantages of living
independantly with the advantages of living communally. With individual
houses grouped together with communal green space and a common house,
its easy to see how this idea is put into practice. But I wonder about
the experience of people living in apartment type (or other forms of
single building or attached housing). Does being so close cause
interpersonal or societal conflicts that might not arise in detached
housing. (I understand the green (environmental) and energy advantages
of single building construction, but this question is about the
interpersonal implications). Anyone in that type of co-housing care to
comment?
Thanks, James Brian Bartholomew wrote:
Marganne <marganne [at] macnexus.org> writes:there's an idea that attached dwellings that stick to design guidelines is more economical than detached homes. It's probably true if a traditional home or condo is the goal.In my polity, attached similar dwellings are NOT more economical than detached homes. Once houses get close enough that they are labeled a "subdivision", there's a lot of extra stuff the city commission obligates you to build, and a huge variety of economizing approaches the city commission bans you from using, such as self-building. My personal estimate of the numbers in my own local situation is that in the absence of zoning, I could have built a house situation for a $60K buy-in. But in the real world with all the zoning, permitting, and guilds, the price increases to $225K. That's almost four times more resources used. The biggest improvement you can make in affordability is to relocate out of the grasp of polities that will quadruple your costs. The costs of a weathertight box to live in that contains a shower, stove, sink, and bed are negligible. For instance, I hear FEMA trailers are being auctioned for $700. If you were to cluster 20 of them on 20 acres, that gives you somewhere to live while the bunch of you built something nicer -- but good luck finding a polity that allows you to live this affordably. Brian _________________________________________________________________Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
- Re: [C-L] How to develop a group for 50+ without family, (continued)
- Re: [C-L] How to develop a group for 50+ without family Brian Bartholomew, June 29 2007
- Re: [C-L] How to develop a group for 50+ without family Stuart Joseph, June 30 2007
- Re: [C-L] How to develop a group for 50+ without family Brian Bartholomew, June 30 2007
- Re: [C-L] How to develop a group for 50+ without family Stuart Joseph, July 2 2007
- Re: attached vs detached James Kacki, July 2 2007
- Re: attached vs detached Bonnie Fergusson, July 2 2007
- Re: attached vs detached Sharon Villines, July 3 2007
- Re: [C-L] How to develop a group for 50+ without family Stuart Joseph, June 30 2007
- 50+ and affordable Marganne, June 29 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.