Re: Balance Between Economic Viability and Vital community | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Laura Fitch (lfitch![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 11:09:49 -0700 (PDT) |
Lamaia, If you think that you can market 37 units in your area, I think you will enjoy certain benefits from being big: - you can more easily afford the land and common house, so your homes can be more affordable - you will have more folks to do the work over time: there will be times when members of your future community cannot fully participate in whatever work program you set up (illness, job change, outside pressures like aging parents, birth, etc., etc.). If your group is small, you will tend to notice these fluctuations more. - with a larger community I think you are more likely to have enough turn-over to continue to get some young families. Otherwise - you are quite likely to become a NORC (naturally occurring retirement community) in about 15 years! I can think of several communities that have more than 30 units that seem to be very successful in the long term: Pioneer Valley Cohousing (my home) has 32 and about 10 associate member households in the immediate community, as well as 5 or so rental units on site. Cambridge Cohousing has 41 units, and they've always struck me as very strong. A few communities that I know (with numbers under 25 households) seem to struggle with maintaining things like regular common meals. Laura Fitch, AIA, LEED AP Kraus-Fitch Architects, Inc. 110 Pulpit Hill Rd. Amherst, MA 01002 413-549-5799 lfitch [at] krausfitch.com www.krausfitch.com -----Original Message----- From: Lamaia Hoffmann [mailto:lamaiahoffmann [at] yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 2:27 AM To: cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Subject: [C-L]_ Balance Between Economic Viability and Vital community Hi- Folsom Ecohousing is facing similar financial constraints as many forming groups in this real estate climate- we have to keep unit prices down so they are salable. Obviously, more units divides the common costs between more people, so individual unit price is lower, but from reading the archives, that can come at a social cost. 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. We are located in Folsom, a suburb of Sacramento, CA and the site is just a couple of blocks from Light Rail, a historic downtown and outdoor recreation. Thanks for sharing your experiences and perspectives! Lamaia _________________________________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
-
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.