Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: LDM costs

[Buzz Burrell (72253.2101]

The Lot Development Model (LDM) is a very interesting alternative when compared
with the Danish Model (how it has been assumed CoHo should be done).  I'm really
enjoying the thoughtful and intelligent discussion on this topic.  

<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.

I agree with Stuart that cost is "a major factor...", and it's good he used that
example.  And the statement that "the ... cost is going to be quite a bit higher
.."  is a very common and understandable belief.  My opinion is that this is
somewhat true ... but a lot less true than one might think!  Martin Tracy wrote
some excellent comments on this already, but here are my own.

1. The "economies of scale" are largly mythical.  I've heard this ("do it all
the same") speech so many times (primarily from professional developers), that I
understand why it has been accepted as gospel, but until the community gets
large, the material costs do drop, but not significantly.  This was a factor at
Nyland for example, but I don't think it will be for the size our community is
going to be.
"...as with anything else" - Schumacher dispelled many of the "economy of scale"
myths long ago in the book "Small is Beautiful", but the assumptions persist.
(Maybe this book should go back on the CoHo reading list).  The main benefit of
"economy of scale" comes when you sell a toliet seat to the US government for
$600.  In other words, contrary to claims, most "economies of scale" are set up
to benefit the seller, not the consumer.

2. Time - What about ours?  Designing houses via a group process is an
experience that different people would describe using wildly differt adjectives,
but suffice to say it will take a lot longer than just deciding what you want.
When a value is placed on your time, I suspect any dollars saved on materials
are completely erradicated by your time spent in group meetings deciding what to
do. 

3. Strain on relationships - Someone pointed out that couples "shouldn't attempt
(designing thier own house) unless the relationship is rock solid".  Yeah, it's
definitly like ballroom dancing or tandem canoeing ... but then this warning
certainly applies to joining a CoHo group anyway.
 
4. Infrastructure - As Martin pointed out, the community infrastructure is the
same irregardless, so there is no cost savings or increase in this area by using
the LDM.

5. Logistics - Besides tending to make everything look the same, the Danish
model does require it to be done at the same time.  Personally, this strikes me
as a major pain in the ___.  Mortgages, selling current home, financing, huge
decisions, jobs, spouses, as well as knowledge, energy, and motivation all have
to coincide with everyone else.  Why not just let everyone come along at thier
own natural pace? 

6. Financing - The LDM certainly requires group committment and monetary
contributions.  But by freeing the house component from the group funding,
people are left with individual responsibility for raising the money for thier
own house, which is a lot simpler, quicker, and easier to understand.  Everyone
will be operating within the parameters set by the group, but if you want a big
house, and can afford it, you just do it.  Same for small house.

7. Inexpensive option - Rather than being only for the people with money, the
LDM opens it up for everybody, because you only do what you can afford (within
the guidelines again).

8. Construction options - With the LDM, serving as ones own contractor,
architect, or even tradesman is easily done, while in the Danish model, it is an
organizational nightmare.  Doing any of the three above further reduces, not
increases the cost.  Therefore, this discussion ties in with some of the other
current message threads regarding building-your-own house, etc.  Taking
responsibility for one's own shelter from professionals, while not generally
recommended, is quite empowering and delightful for those who are willing and
interested in doing it.  It's like doctors - some people rely upon doctors for
their health, and some people don't.  Its a vast issue, but quickly stated, it
simply should be your choice.  
  
9. Advanced methods - Its a very rare architect, contractor, or builder who uses
the most advanced methods, materials, and principles available (the doctor
analogy again).  By taking charge of your own house, you have at least the
potential of utilizing new ideas that will help the environment, cost less in
the long run, and be a statement of your values.  Some people say this costs
more, (the Republicans and their "jobs vs the environment" demogoguery), but I
say maybe it will and maybe it won't.

10. Community - The ramifications of doing the LDM are huge, I'm mainly trying
to discuss cost, but since people are concerned about the effects upon the
community spirit, here are two quick comments:
a) "No pain, no gain", "Struggle builds character", and other old standards are
western European concepts that I'm trying to reject.  Does one detect these
assumptions to be present in the development process in the Danish model,
especially considering where they both came from?
b) I think the LDM is a simpler and easier option for certain people, (myself
obviously being one of them), and will thus create a stronger community because
of those virtues if none other.

Summary -
* The Lot Development Model is a good option for some people, not for others.
* It is not required to be more expensive.  Done in combination with other
practices, it will definitly be cheaper.
* To me it comes down to choice, not cost, which should be a result of choice,
not a mandate.  As humans continue to grow and evolve, the crux factor has
always been increased CHOICE.  We don't always (often?) make good ones, but
allowing for the maximum amount of choices defines our opportunity for maturity,
evolution, beauty and strength.  

Buzz Burrell
72253.2101 [at] compuserve.com
Boulder, Colorado