Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: eco-village

[Collaborative Housing Society (cohosoc]

John Massengil responded to my recent posting on two local versions of the
Eco-Village concept:  "You've described the goals, but not the means to
achieve those ends. So, and this is a BIG question, how do Eco-villages
accomplish their goals?  Do they follow Harry Pasternak's rules, for
example?"

John, I did not intend to offer either example as a set of "goals", but as a
way of pointing out that, like cohousing, there is not (and in my opinion,
should not be) any pre-defined, nicely packaged thing called "eco-village".
Everything from new construction to simply working together to make a
downtown neighbourhood a better and healthier place to live can be an
eco-village - a place that encourages (enables?) sustainable, human and
natural environmentally sound living.

As for paying attention to _anyone's_ set of rules. . .

I have not posted a lot to this list, but I realized a while ago that
everything I have posted (including the above message that you responded to)
is in one way or another about discouraging any tightly bound, pre-defined
or otherwise non-organic, dead, static, un-human and un-ecologically healthy
packaging of this idea called cohousing (or eco-village) from taking over
this wonderful "approach to housing ourselves".

Or, to put it more positively, I am working hard to find ways to bring the
benefits of this sometimes-awe-inspiring way of thinking and dealing with
how we live together to the places I (and you) already live.

For more on this, if you're interested, a recent posting was reprinted in
the last issue of CoHousing Magazine, and way back in the Winter 1994 issue
I had another article about housing and environmentalism (I'm a regional
editor of the magazine, just so you know).

My rationale for this is really quite simple.  I see no point in expending
all this time, energy and money to build a place that, for all its internal
sustainability - social, economic, environmental or otherwise - has to exist
in a world that is increasingly less habitable.

Building special places that we can point to and say "See, there is another
way!" is a key part of the process, but if it stops there, then what have we
really changed?

Therefore, I strongly support the West-End neighbourhood that is going out
and making an Eco-Village where they already live.  They probably aren't
following any of the rules put forth by Harry, Findhorn, In Context or other
"true" eco-village proponents, and they certainly aren't going to end up
with the "right" site-design, construction methods or agri-eating habits,
but I'll wager that they will have more of a positive impact on making
everyday people think a bit harder about how they're conducting themselves
on this planet we all share. . .

So, by what means do they acheive their ends?  The only way anything ever
gets done - by just getting out there and doing it!  No Scientific Analysis
of whether it meets all approved criteria - just a bunch of people who think
that they can make a difference.

I have to add (please excuse me, but this is a big bug I've got up my butt)
that the seemingly never ending desire to codify and measure and _name_
everything (Is it really cohousing?  Is it really an eco-village?) is both a
symptom *and* cause of the very mess we profess to wanting to get out of
with our eco-villages, and that is the damage that Rational Humanism -
Science - has done to the world.  When are we going to learn that
Nature/God/The Universe just doesn't have an answer?????

Russell Mawby
Toronto, Ontario
Director, the Collaborative Housing Society
graduate architect
Have always lived in community, just not quite the community I would like.