Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Lot Development Model

[Buzz Burrell (72253.2101]

        At Geneva Community (we have an option on rural land north of Boulder),
we are going with the "lot development model".  Until I recently signed on to
this e-list, none of us had ever heard this development style mentioned, so
discovering that many other people are doing what we are doing is quite
gratifying and helpful.
        We haven't broken ground yet, so it will be awhile before we can
definitively answere some questions posed on this subject, but we all became
excited when we realized there was no reason to use the Danish method, and that
a simpler and easier development method was readily available.
        Personally, today I am not sure I would join a cohousing group that uses
the Danish method.  Having travelled extensively in Asia, the Danish method
(which seems to be touted as THE way to do Cohousing) bears a striking
resemblance how they do things in China and the former USSR;  one could call it
the "we are all suppossed to do the exact same thing at the exact same time"
model.  On the other hand, from villages and communities to monasterys and
ashrams, successful communities I've seen rely on individual initiative and an
organic growth and development pattern.
        Denmark, being a highly orderly and homogenous culture, developed a 
style
that I don't think fits the average US citizen real well.  The "lot development
model" (LDM), and it's various evolutions, I think will be more in keeping with
many of our temperments, strengths, and (abundant) weaknesses.  I know of many
people who when hearing of cohousing, instantly realize it is the "only way to
go", and then upon seeing how it tends to work, instantly reverse that opinion.
        Diversity, or the lack thereof, is an identifying feature in this
comparison.  Many groups in the US have a diversity committee, and set diversity
as a goal, but then the entire development and decision making process is
predicated upon doing the exact same things at the exact same times!  These two
factors obviously work at cross-purposes.  The Danish process, based on a
different society than ours, will quite naturally work best with, and also
encourage (not require), an economic, aesthetic, and cultural homogeneity.
There seems to be an unconscious assumption that having all the houses look
alike leads to community, but I suspect that is not the case.  I suspect (I
certainly do not know) that relationships are what form community, and
individual freedom, creativity, and plentifull options may lead to a stronger
community than the socialistic models.
        Rob S stated:  "In designing a development all together individuals 
often
end up making choices based on other peoples income."  In my opinion, not only
is this an important truism, but one could substitute a large array of other
factors for "income", and it would be just as much a problem for all of them.
In other words, the priciple he states is true for many aspects of the Danish
method.
        
        I need to quickly point out that the Danish method definitly works for
many people, there are great communities based upon it, and it is ideal for some
people.  But it is not the only method, as it has sometimes seemed, and possibly
may not be the best method for Americans.  
        The "LDM" does require planning and parameters, but (we are presuming
this), considerably less.  Moreover, it will work most efficiently with a group
of fairly mature and conscious people, because at its best, it relys upon good
communication, shared goals, dedication toward community, and trust rather than
a vast amount of rules and process.
        That's what I think right now.  I'll let you know again in a few years.
In the meantime, I look forward to more comments and suggestions, and especially
reports from those who have done it.
        Buzz Burrell
        Boulder, CO