Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: What creates community?

[John Gear (catalyst]

Buzz Burrell wrote (in part):

>Another Factor - If one looks at communities world wide, probably the most
>common factor is not that they eat together, but that they work together.
>Literally; like they all grow rice or something.
>Work is not a factor in the cohousing model, where the community usually
>consists of commuters who drive off to work somewhere every day.

Buzz, I think you've really nailed some important ideas here.  When all is
said and done, where we spend our "best" (most alert/aware/refreshed) hours
can be said to represent the place we sanctify with our selves.  After
experiencing this list for some time I've struggled with a growing feeling
that (and this is phrased indelicately but it really is the only way I can
describe the image that I'm getting from these messages):

A METAPHOR FOR COHOUSING THAT INVOLVES DEVELOPMENT/BUILDING

Cohousing that involves building--and the momentous struggles and excitement
and trials--is kind of a yuppie bondage scene:  you put your "Self" (your
money) at some risk and it heightens the pleasurable sensations when you
come out the other side ok.  All the energy and effort spent on the
paraphernalia (whether delicate little devices or intricate resale
provisions) contribute to the interest in the scene but, in the end, are
just "things."  And like bondage scenes, there's no real risk--people with
$150k or more to put into a house and land are going to do *just fine*
regardless.

A TENTATIVE CONCLUSION FROM ALL THIS TALK OF BUILDING

The impression I get from so much of the discussion of how to develop this
or that lot is that community is really, bottom line, an afterthought for
many of these people--or, more precisely perhaps, a garnish, pleasant if
added to the dish but not essential.  A lot of the posts to this list
suggest people place a lot higher value on building houses than they do on
nurturing community or connection to others.

What seems really important to a lot of folks is the opportunity to build a
house ... but since that's available to anyone with enough money, it's not
as exciting (and is likely to cause you to wind up even more isolated than
is normally the case, which is quite a bit).  And because even building your
own house is a synthetic experience for most people (i.e., they don't
actually b*u*i*l*d it, they are just slightly more involved in its
construction by others than most people are) they *still* feel distant and
deprived of a real experience.  So they pursue "cohousing"--which seems to
be a way to build ultraexclusive planned unit developments, complete with
clubhouses and some idiosycratic amenities.  But which are nevertheless,
ultrasafe. 

ARE GOLF COURSE VILLAGES COHOUSING COMMUNITIES?

But I can't detect any fundamental difference between much of the discussion
here and the one that guides the development of "Fairway Village" (except
that I don't gather that too many cohousers on this list golf).

In fact, for all the talk about cohousing being young and reinvented and
new, it seems to me that thousands of towns have "cohousing" of the kind
that results when building and development are the prime focus.  These
"cohousing communities" are all located near the golf courses.  They are
filled with people who share common values and interests, have common houses
and amenities, and individually developed properties (often with strict
architectural covenants to ensure that the common space is preserved in the
selected style).

Do you consider golf course villages cohousing?  If not, why not?

IF BUILDING WAS UNNECESSARY WOULD YOU STILL BE INTERESTED?

As a thought experiment I tried to imagine how this cohousing list would
work if there were no need to discuss facilities ("things").  How would most
of the nucleating groups react if they were given an option on a row of old
base housing at a military base no longer being used?  What *would* we talk
about if building and financing weren't such a consuming passion?  Would we
still have a list?  Is cohousing-l really "owner-build-l?"

MOBILE HOME PARKS--THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION?

After moving to Western Washington I began to notice that immobile homes
grow like mushrooms around here--and got to wondering why we never talked
about these?  They seem like the obvious solution to the difficulties that
so many groups face--and they are so much less expensive than custom-built
that a lot of groups could afford a triple-wide for a common house easily,
along with a raft of other amenities.  They are energy-efficient (built to
"Super Good Cents" code, which is a pretty responsible standard) and you can
find ones that are reasonably spacious and attractive without too much
searching.

I thought I saw a message from a woman in a trailer park a while ago asking
about coho and trailer parks.  Did I imagine that?  I don't think anyone
responded, at least on list.  Why is that?  My impression is that this list
is middle class and up--and that immobile homes are still considered declasse.

I'm wondering if mobile homes aren't discussed because they wipe out the
bondage scene aspect of things--you don't have to get all tied up and the
experience is over so quickly.  No need to haggle over whether or not you
can afford compact fluorescent fixtures--it's all built, you just find the
land.  (Well, not quite--but it's a quickie compared to the elaborate scenes
we eavesdrop onto in this list.)

TO KNOW WHAT CREATES COMMUNITY, FIND OUT WHAT CREATES FAMILY

Looping back around at last (if anyone is still with me) to Buzz' comment, I
just wanted to note how right he is about the aspect of work being critical
to real community.  Having lived in one of the worst of all possible
worlds--a submarine--I can tell you that it's not the structure of the space
you're in, it's the shared results you create while in that space that build
community.  I have been--and expect I'll always be--closer to the people I
sailed with than any other group of coworkers.  I've never lived in worse
conditions or had stronger ties to anyone besides my wife.

My guess is that we say "community" as a synonym for family--we don't want
to sound like we're David Koresh and say "we want to establish a large
family"--and "community" sounds innocuous so we say that instead.  Thus, if
we want to know how to create communities we should examine what creates
close families.

Between adults, more than anything else it's being bound by a common goal
and making progress towards that goal. Whether that's to have/raise kids,
buy a house, run a business, whatever, it's doing things together--and most
definately not always pleasant things.  Bonds form between adults when they
exert efforts towards a difficult, but reachable, common goal.

Now that I see that in type I think this is why building seems so central to
so many forming communities--it's all they've got for purpose (having a
really cool place to live).  It gives the group a reason for being and a
hell of a challenge.  But is it sufficiently important to form a community
around?  My guess would be no, but I hope to hear from others.

IS THIS WRONG?

Anyway, I've spouted far too long--your turn!  Let me just say that these
opinions, like everything I know, are subject to revision.  (Actually,
before finding this list I would have said things 180 degrees out from my
current assessments--I would have said that literally building a coho
community was the sine qua non for cohousing.  Now I'm just more and more
disenchanted with equating cohousing and building.) 

Open to your responses.
Peace,

John Gear (catalyst [at] pacifier.com)

"Tyrants of all varieties have always known about the value of providing the
masses with amusements as a means of pacifying discontent.  But most of them
could not have even hoped for a situation in which the masses would ignore
that which does not amuse.  That is why tyrants have always relied, and
sitll do, on censorship.  Censorship is, after all, the tribute that tyrants
pay to the assumption that a public knows the difference between serious
discourse and entertainment--and cares.  How delighted would be all the
kings, czars, and fuhrers of the past (and commissars of the present) to
know that censorship is not a necessity when all political discourse takes
the form of a jest."               -- Neil Postman, "Amusing Ourselves to Death"