Re: Balance Between Economic Viability and Vital community | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Bob Morrison (RHmorrison![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 06:58:03 -0700 (PDT) |
Lamaia Hoffmann lamaiahoffmann [at] yahoo.com wrote: We are currently considering 37 condo style units with 2 probable adjunct houses that would be on lots we'd sell off, but whose residents could well want to participate in the community to some level (current members have shown interest in the lots). According to the textbook definitions I've read, 37 + potentially 2 more is too big. I've looked through the archives and gleaned what I could, but most of the intense discussions seem to have been around 2000/2001 and there is a lot of cohousing experience in the US since then. I am interested in people's experience with how larger sizes has effected their community for better or worse. Also, if we need to have a fairly high number of units, what can we do to help ameliorate the detrimental effects of a larger community? I've read that splitting it into 2 smaller communities could be better, but any ideas on how to pay for the entire land and other prep work up front? It seems very difficult. [end quote] I live in Sawyer Hill EcoVillage (http://www.sawyerhill.org/) in Berlin, MA. We faced a similar dilemma on a larger scale, that is, we had a site on which we could build 68 units, which was far too large for one cohousing, so we put two adjoining cohos (Mosaic Commons and Camelot, 34 units each) on the site. Our history is different because these were two cohousing groups that joined forces for this. The Sawyer Hill EcoVillage org manages the site itself, water and septic systems, and a few other things that are common to both cohos. Other than this, it's two free-standing cohos. This model has worked well so far, and might be a good model for you to use. I think 37 units is on the borderline of being too large to work well socially as a coho. If you break up into two cohos, an issue is to make sure most of the movers and shakers don't all go to one of them, because that might leave the other one without enough movers and shakers to be viable. Bob Morrison
-
Balance Between Economic Viability and Vital community Lamaia Hoffmann, May 29 2010
- Re: Balance Between Economic Viability and Vital community Laura Fitch, May 31 2010
- Re: Balance Between Economic Viability and Vital community Sharon Villines, May 31 2010
- Re: Balance Between Economic Viability and Vital community Bob Morrison, May 31 2010
-
Re: Balance Between Economic Viability and Vital community R.N. Johnson, June 4 2010
- Re: Balance Between Economic Viability and Vital community Sharon Villines, June 4 2010
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.