Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Lot Development Model

[Martin Tracy (mtracy]

<Stuart Staniford-Chen writes:>

>It seems to me that a major factor in the decision whether to build all  
>the lots out individually, or all at once is going to be cost.  If  
>everyone buys their own lot, hires their own architect, and builds their  
>own place, the average house cost is going to be quite a bit higher than  
>if all the houses are built at the same time to the same plan (or one of a  
>few variants).  There are obviously a lot of economies of scale in  
>designing and building houses, as with anything else.

Martin Tracy, mtracy [at] ix.netcom.com, responds:

I'm very interested in this premise: whether building the <Danish> model is 
cheaper than building the <lot> model.

A large part of the expense of cohousing is in the lot design, city approval 
and 
permits, roads, laying power and water, and the rest of the infrastructure.  
Both models have the same requirements for infrastructure.  In other words, 
even 
in the "lot" model, a great many elements <are> being built at the same time.  

The cost of house building materials, I have been told, does <not> 
substantially 
decrease as more houses are built, and neither does the cost of labor.

Ok, so maybe 30 kitchen sinks are a little cheaper per sink than one kitchen 
sink.  And certainly 30 architects are cheaper than one.  (Of course, if you 
see 
a neighbor's house you like, you can ask the same architect to do a variation 
for you, on the cheap.)

On the other hand, juggling mortgages, selling homes on a strict schedule, 
renting until the house is built, etc, can be costly, too.  Not to mention 
being 
forced to build a home <more expensive> than you would build for yourself.

So how much is really saved?  Is the <Danish> model really cheaper?  Anyone 
have 
a handle on this? 

>My own experience of living in a close-knit cohousing community is the  
>following - you want to be close to your neighbours so that you casually  
>interact with them all the time.  If I'm in my back yard, and my neighbour  
>is in hers, we are much more likely to talk if we are close enough that we  
>don't have to walk over to do it.  If the Lot Development Model means  
>large houses on big lots, then I think the benefits of community life will  
>be much enervated.  I don't think it has to mean that, but I suspect it  
>might in some cases.

But the <lot> development model doesn't mean large houses on big lots!  The 
community designs the layout of the lots, not the individual households.  
Sharingwood Phase 2 option holders have been asked to estimate the "footprint" 
of each house, so we can group and cluster ourselves appropriately.

>I'm also curious how the process of custom home building will interact  
>with group formation.  Custom home building is famously stressful - the  
>advice I have heard for couples is not to attempt it unless you are  
>certain your relationship is rock solid.  Can people involved in this also  
>invest a lot of time in the group process needed to start a community?   

I see a good marriage as a community of two.  A couple who have a "rock solid" 
relationship are well-positioned for the group process needed for community, 
don't you think? 



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