Social behavior Re: FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Wayne Tyson (landrestcox.net) | |
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 21:17:08 -0700 (PDT) |
Thanks for the response. I think we are trying to think beyond all
assumptions, and base our experiment upon all of the considerations you
mention and then some. I would quite agree that "leap-frog" development is
bad, but do not assume that mass transit and restriction to designated urban
growth boundaries is necessarily a solution in and of itself. Moving the
edges of existing metropolitan areas farther and farther "out" can be
sensible, but so can integration of wildlands into urban areas. A lot
depends on the details.
For example, the edges of some metropolitan areas are biological "hot-spots" or are much needed farmland, etc. If building and planning (and paving, and roofing and grass-planting, irrigating, fertilizing, mowing, and poisoning) take ecological and geological factors into account as well as pollution issues, they can be done much more intelligently. The environmental and social record of conventional building and planning is largely one of tragic error.
I look forward to further discussion. WT----- Original Message ----- From: "Richart Keller" <richart.keller [at] gmail.com>
To: "'Cohousing-L'" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement
While I understand the desire to be in a rural, the planet really needscompact developments which are located in such a way as to minimize vehicle miles traveled. To minimize CO2 emissions and increase the market for masstransit (bus, light rail, etc.) have you thought about locating within a designated urban growth boundary area or in or at the edge of an existing metropolitan area? Cohousing has so many benefits which are consistent with (and even models of) good sustainability practices, it strengthens its influence if the planning takes location into account. Rick Richart Keller, AICP 120 Pulpit Hill Road #27 Amherst, MA 01002 413-835-0011 401 486-2677 (cell) -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Tyson [mailto:landrest [at] cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:09 PM To: Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Subject: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement Honorable Forum:I am and long have been interested in the subject of co-housing and relatedmatters, and have read "all" the informational material I could "find." I am especially interested in building upon the ideas and experience of others, and will always welcome all kinds of responses to my questions and ideas.At present, I am investigating the possibility of developing a variation on the themes I have investigated, both theoretically and actually. We plan toinvestigate Oregon for possible sites in early September, 2010. We expectour "project" to be rural, but near towns and cities; we expect that it willtake years, if not generations, for the transistional process to occur. I would appreciate any tips regarding legal procedures (zoning, changes,building codes, requirements for establishing a town) and obstacles (how toovercome them or the feasibility of overcoming them). Here is a brief description of the something of the sort of alternative community we are exploring. 1. Facilitating trends toward reconciling the needs and works of humankind with those of the earth and its life. 2. Diversity and integration of skills, personalities and lives.3. Concept of "frugal luxury" and adequacy in all aspects of fulfilling lifepotential--an alternative to both poverty and greed.4. Trends away from egocentrism as a presumed normal function of cooperationrather than intentional displacement-competition.5. Leaving the land and its life alone as much as possible, integrating with nature, in the sense of staying within the energy/nutrient cycle as much aspossible, but without pressure for rapid change--gradual transitionaltransformation, but complete tolerance of all versions and degrees and ratesof such a process without active peer pressure or other coercion.6. Innovative, original, efficient ways of providing sustenance and comfortsuch as through highly functional, economical architecture rather than aesthetic style. 7. No rules, and no rules about no rules. Deception and other manipulationsimply will not work because of the nature of the citizens. Dominance is notconcentrated, but shifts according to context.These are thoughts quite open for discussion, and we welcome other thoughtsand discussion on the implied specifics. Each of these "topics" probablyhave an infinite number of subsets, and we welcome all kinds of comments andsuggestions as we cycle through our learning/understanding process. Thank you for your responses and for allowing me to participate. Specific suggestions about modifications to this brief list are especially welcome. WT _________________________________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ _________________________________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3113 - Release Date: 09/04/10 06:34:00
- Re: FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement, (continued)
- Re: FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement Wayne Tyson, September 1 2010
- Re: FIRST POST Opinion on "Not-rule" #7 Naomi Anderegg, September 2 2010
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement Wayne Tyson, September 7 2010
- Social behavior Re: FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement Wayne Tyson, September 4 2010
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.