Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Sweat Equity

[Martin Tracy (mtracy]

(Bill Paiss writes about the joys and challenges of sweat equity in cohousing) 

>For those who can or want to do this I have nothing but admiration.  However,
>very, very few people I have met in the CoHousing world are prepared or
>interested in this approach.  Most people are trying to save some money in
>the construction of their home or would like to know they had a hand in the
>construction.  It is this middle ground that is so difficult to integrate
>into the construction schedule of a multi-million dollar real estate project.
 
>The guideline that we (Wonderland Builders in this case) have given to
>CoHousers wanting to be involved in construction are very straight forward.
>They must be treated as any other subcontractor and "perform" to the
>schedule, quality and specifications of the other trades.  Because of the
>interconnectedness of the building process (Sing along...the floor joists
>connected to the sub floor...) the work or lack thereof usually impacts
>several other trades.

Yes.  All construction must meet inspections or we won't get a certificate of 
occupancy.  And if it meets code and schedule, it will probably meet the 
specifications of the other trades.  Requirements are generally less strict for 
the owner builder.  In California and Washington, owner builders can do all of 
the construction, electrical, and plumbing, without any licenses.  (In 
California, a licensed electrician must stand the inspection.)

>The option mentioned by Martin that: 

><cohousing groups could be organized around the purchase of the land, 
>leaving the houses to be the responsibility of each family, within certain 
>architectural guidelines, and on no particular schedule.>

>would allow for much greater flexibility in the building and design process.
>This model also brings with it a very different scenairo on several other
>fronts.  To highlight a few, it changes how long people would be living in a
>construction zone; the potential savings from bulk purchases; the structure
>and allocation of homeowner dues over the construction period; the funding
>and timing of common facilities construction and the relationship to any
>lending institutions you may need during this phase.

>The bottom line is sweat equity is a realistic option if the group makes it a
>high priority and structures the development around it.  Like most things in
>this process it is a choice that brings with it many joys and challenges.  My
>only suggestion is for groups to make it a conscious and educated choice.

Right on, Bill!  Furthermore, they must make it a possible choice.  Most don't. 
There are several middle grounds.  For example, a cohousing group could plan 
for 
some of the lots to be sold to owner builders.  I would guess that banks find 
it 
easier to finance a lot than to finance a lot plus house.  Or the group 
could learn enough construction to save money by being their own contractors.  
Or...

>Happy Building,
>
>Bill Paiss
>bpaiss [at] aol.com
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Martin Tracy, Los Angeles
mtracy [at] ix.netcom.com