Cohousing-L Mailing List: Cohousing mainstream?

[Craig D. Willis (willic3]

Rob Sandelin wrote:

>Having people share your values is nice in cohousing, but it is not 
>mandatory ...

>Cohousing differs from some other forms of intentional community in 
>that groups can get together without heavy political agendas, ...

>What cohousing does, IMHO, is offer a touch of cooperative living to the 
>mainstream culture.

This is interesting.  I think cohousing has the potential to be many
different things, and this is certainly a valid view of it.  I hadn't
integrated my experiences to the point where I was very consciously
aware of that angle on it, but the cohousing groups that I've had
first-hand experience with (Albany & Amherst) *are* pretty much
mainstream, now that I think of it.  I guess I was blinded by my own
aspirations. :-)

On the other hand, Kevin Wolf remarked:

>On the thread of the political implications of co-housing, one thing 
>some of us in N Street have joked about is that if co-housing catches on 
>in a major way, a lot less washers, dryers, garden tools, lawn mowers, 
>hopefully cars, camping equipment, and the like will be purchased.  Each 
>house won't need its own of everything.

To me, this sort of possibility for cohousing (and some others
suggested as well, e.g. sharing office space, unconventional financing
arrangements) seem to be slipping *out* of the realm of the
mainstream.  I say that because I view *real* cooperation and sharing
(when taken beyond just a superficial level) as something that the
mainstream is probably not ready for yet.

Cohousing, to date, probably must be seen as pretty much whatever it
has manifested itself as so far.  Does that make it mainstream?  My
first-hand experiences, as I say, would somewhat confirm that it does.
But I've also gotten the impression that some of the communities I've
been hearing about in this group maybe are *not* so mainstream.  Who
are the most radical cohousers reading this and would one or more of
you be willing to describe your community(ies) and tell us what are
the most significant ways in which yours diverge from the mainstream?

Bob Morrison said "If large developers were interested in cohousing,
it would be far easier."

Cohousing, in the sense of being a (potentially) fairly mainstream
proposition aimed primarily at altering the design of the community
(read "development") by adding a common house, making the houses a
little closer together, and preserving a little open space, *could*
probably be "coopted" by developers if the demand were perceived to be
there.  Much of the potential and value of cohousing, in my view,
would be lost if this were to happen.  But if cohousing were to catch
on in a "big" way, I suppose this would be almost inevitable, given
the way things work in our society.  Given this view, I would probably
alter my contention that cohousing (in this particular form) would
necessarily represent any threat to the status quo.  Such a cooption
might very well preserve the essential facets of the system as they
now exist.  Of course, that isn't the view of cohousing that I had
when I speculated about the possible consequences of it catching on.
But in another way, the possibility of such a scenario represents
*exactly* what I was talking about.

A final comment regarding Rob Sandelin's question:

>I would be cautious about the words "true community".  What does that 
>mean?

To me, this is not a difficult issue to sort out.  There are certain
values/attitudes that are essential to community and there are many
that are not.  A willingness to cooperate, for example, is essential
as a shared value.  Belief in capitalism or libertarianism or any
other political system is most assuredly not.  Just don't get confused
about what is really fundamental and what is not and this sort of
question won't be confusing.

Craig