Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Coho & LIFESTYLE CHANGES--> Sustainability?

[Jeffrey O. Hobson (johobson]

Jeff's addition to this thread:

First off, I'd like to say I'm delighted at this thread: it has provoked
some of the most interesting conversation on the list in awhile.  Thanks be
to Mike for starting it off.

I see the thread as including a few major issues, which I'll address in
separate messages: home/work proximity, consumption, and population
(renters, kids).  So:

LIVE/WORK PROXIMITY and TRANSPORTATION:
I need to admit from the outset that I feel smug in this area.  My commute
is 2 miles by bicycle.  I do not own a car, and use one once a week or so
(for work, pleasure, or the homeless shelter).  When I was looking for a
job, I had a choice between Davis Energy Group and another company 20 miles
down the freeway.  Travel was one of the factors (though not the only one).
These are *choices* we make, and they involve tradeoffs.  

Mike's original question, however, was whether any cohousing projects had
developed their own businesses, employing several (at least 2) residents.  N
Street cannot claim to have done so.  What have we done:

One resident (Kevin Wolf) runs a consulting business out of his house.  He
provides copy/fax/computer services to anyone in the community who wants
them, at nominal charges.  

One resident used to run a massage business in her house, but has since
moved her business downtown (2 miles away; she drives).  

One resident runs a small landscaping business.  I assume his office is in
his house, but of course his business depends on his pickup truck.  

What have we talked about:
One resident currently works in day care, and was encouraged by a few
parents in the community to set up a day care facility in her house/backyard
for community and non-community members.  It hasn't happened.

The community doesn't need all the space in the common house, and currently
rents out 4 bedrooms as living space.  We have considered converting some of
it to office space (when the current residents move on).  It *will* happen,
it is just a question of whether it will be communal or individual.  

As for how N Streeters commute, here's my memory's guess:
12 bicycle in-Davis 
14 car commute (average 15-20 mi., I'd guess)
5 car in-Davis 
3 bus commute 

Car Co-ops:
Several of us without cars, and without significant others who have cars
(there used to be more of us, but now there's 4), have talked about a car
co-op.  We've never gotten anywhere, probably because we all get along well
enough by borrowing other peoples cars.  However, for those who want
information, I believe the best source is:
Car-Sharing Start-up Kit: $50 from
RAIN
PO Box 30097
Eugene OR 97403
(503) 345-2708

For less expensive information, write to RAIN for their Summer 1994 issue
(v14,n4), for $5.  It includes addresses & phone #'s for groups in Eugene,
Corvallis, Portland (OR), Seattle, Los Angeles, and Quebec.  

My Opinions on the Worth of Different Modes of Transport:
Designing neighborhoods with proximity of work and home is necessary for the
future (see David Hungerford's comments on this thread).  Businesses in
cohousing communities are another good option, and are certainly possible.
As with anything else we do, they take some initial organization, but may
well save time in the long run, if they displace the ridiculous amounts of
time people spend commuting.

Nonetheless, I am confident that even in my utopia some people will travel
to get to work.  The car, used by a single driver, is the worst mode I can
imagine (with the possible exception of single-driver small airplanes).  If
there is anyone out there who feels that the U.S. should continue to
emphasize automobile transportation as the primary mode of transportation, I
would like to hear from them.  Why?

Human-Powered.
It is clear that human-powered transportation (walk, skate, bike) is
immensely less polluting than any other type (even, I submit, than
tele-commuting - more on that later).  A friend and I were yesterday
attempting to come up with an environmental impact statement for bicycle
commuting.  Pollution: CO2 exhaled, small amounts of chain grease every 3
months, ....  Human-powered transport requires fewer societal resources, has
less impact on the environment, better promotes human health, and is just
more fun than any type of motorized commuting.  

Designing a neighborhood or a cohousing community for bicycles takes some
thought, but ought to be done and can save money in some jurisdictions (ie.,
if providing lots of bike parking reduces the number of car spaces you have
to provide).  

Mass Transit.
Mass transit is the second-best option.  It is clearly less polluting than
cars (even electric, I believe) on a passenger-mile basis, it allows the
commuter time to read, write, listen to music, floss their teeth, whatever.  
Mass transit also promotes community of its own sort - as any who've used it
regularly know well.  You get to know your busmates, can have great debates
about the bus driver's grooming habits, etc.  In addition, effective mass
transit is an economically progressive alternative.  

The problem with mass transit in the U.S. (especially in the West) is that
our development is so sparse.  Cohousing, I am afraid, is mostly not
addressing that problem.  I haven't heard yet of communities that are doing
anything to directly encourage mass transit.  Are there?

Car-Pools.  
These are good alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles, and they are
especially convenient for cohousing communities to do.  They provide pollution 

Then there's the newer, high-tech alternatives:
Electric Cars.  
These provide pollution advantages over cars, by replacing dispersed
pollution sources with point-sources, which in turn are easier to regulate.
Over the long-term, if electricity generation moves to more renewable
sources, electric cars could provide some energy-use advantages.  However,
electric cars will do nothing about the other problems - land-use,
isolation, etc.  

Tele-commuting.  
This is a useful option for some high-tech folks who do most of their work
via computer.  One major problem, as Ray Gasser pointed out in his posting,
is that people do still need some face-to-face interactions.  Since their
normal commuting can be anywhere in the globe, their face-to-face
interactions will end up being there too, and they will inevitably drive and
fly to them.  More convenient information transfer has *always* increased
long distance interactions.  I would be interested to see whether anyone's
done a study comparing overall environmental impacts of telecommuting vs.
bus-commuting, for example, taking into account this social effect.

Tele-commuting, I believe, will mostly encourage people to go off to live in
beautiful surroundings, foul them up by driving or flying in and out of
them, and ignore the rest of the world.  The development of high-tech
companies in the Rockies is the beginning of that trend.  I don't see
tele-commuting as encouraging community either.

Cars.  Blecch.  Let's not even mention them.

Enough of my tirade.


Jeffrey Hobson
johobson [at] wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us

N Street Cohousing - that organic retrofit place
Davis Energy Group - Energy Analysis, Mechanical Design, Product Development
Davis Community Meals Cold Weather Shelter - community in flux
Energy & Environment General Plan Review Committee, City of Davis -
policies, policies, policies
"Institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only"