Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Re. Housing Enmasse

[Lynne Farnum (lf]

Meg wrote:

"Sure, we cohousers like to think of ourselves as
rather independent neighborhoods within a larger
community, self-sufficient and somewhat isolated,
buffered by the open space that we have preserved
around us from the surrounding ticky tacky."

I strongly disagree.  This is not the attitude of
the cohousers I have met in this area, nor is it the
outlook that most people on cohousing-L have expressed.

In fact, the vision of cohousing as isolationist, both
independent of and "protected" from the surrounding 
neighborhood, is an image that many of us have worked
hard to counteract.  Many groups have been hampered by
a public perception that what they were proposing was
nothing but a yuppie enclave that would turn its back
on the rest of the town or city, when in reality the 
members wanted very much to be part of the larger 
community.

Granted, if the site were bordered by a busy highway,
a wastewater treatment plan, or unkempt back yards, 
one would try to screen those out.  But plenty of 
cohousing communities do not surround themselves with
a "moat" of open space; of those I've heard from on 
cohousing-L, Doyle Street, N Street, Winslow, and 
Monterey Cohousing come quickly to mind.  Just a few
days ago someone mentioned a community that built a
basketball court near the edge of their property, 
which has successfully acted as a bridge to the 
surrounding neighborhood by drawing in local kids who
do not live in the cohousing.

We should always be careful about assuming what 
cohousing is like, or what cohousers' motives are, 
without basing our image on actual experience.  Much
of the opposition to cohousing (which can make it 
difficult for groups to get planning board approval)
is based on stereotypes ("rich yuppies retreat", 
"drug-dealing hippy commune").  Few, if any, of the
opponents could have seen a coho community.

Lynne Farnum