Cohousing-L Mailing List: LDM Survey Responses (1/2)

[Mac Thomson (mac]

Here at San Juan Cohousing were leaning towards developing according to the
Lot Development Model, which was discussed on this list in depth a couple of
months ago.  To get additional info on LDM I questioned numerous groups (via
e-mail, snail mail, or phone) that are using LDM.  What follows is a summary
of their responses.

A hardy thank you to those that responded:  Buzz Burrell, Rob Sandelin, Ian
Higginbottom, Sherri Rosenthal, Lynn Nadeau, and Rod Harold.

 * * STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT * * 
Most groups I heard from are still involved in the early stage of development
so I wasnt able to come up with too many lessons learned of experience.

One community, however, that has been around for a while and was developed
using LDM is Sharingwood.  They completed phase 1 a few years ago and are
preparing for phase 2.  In Robs view, phase 1 was built without enough
community orientation in either the site or individual home designs.  Phase 2
will be built using guidelines to improve the situation.

Cascade Cohousing has also had some homes up for a while now.  They have 9
out of an eventual 14 completed.  They used architectural guidelines and
review from the beginning and are happy with the results.  (Hig is anyway)

 * * DESIGN * * 
Groups vary widely on the issue of design regulation.  Many groups intend to
employ architectural guidelines and architectural review committees.  Some
are even going to have everyone use the same architect or at least make it an
option to use plans generated by the group and an architect.

And then there are other groups composed of anarchists and outlaws that will
use almost no architectural guidelines or review.  Freedom of expression will
rule.

Most everyone believes that LDM provides much greater freedom of design and
freedom to explore alternative construction technologies.

Regardless of the approach to design guidelines, groups feel that the
community orientation of site design will not be compromised.  That is, that
the site design will enhance community interaction as well as if the
development had been done using the Danish model.

 * * CONSTRUCTION DEADLINE * * 
Again on this one there are groups that intend to impose construction
deadlines so that the community doesnt forever remain a construction zone and
there are others that intend to let members build whenever it works best for
them.

One strategy to get folks to build and move in in a timely fashion is to make
them carry their share of community costs (financing and dues) regardless of
whether they are yet living on their site.

 * * MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS * * 
None of the groups I heard from are planning to use LDM to create
multi-family buildings in which each family owns its own unit as part of a
larger condo type building.  Rosewind intends to have a multi-family
building, but it will be developed more in line with the Danish model.

 * * MEMBERSHIP / MARKETING * * 
Either the Danish model or LDM is going to specifically attract some members
and drive away others.  Some potential members will want to design and build
their own home because of the freedom and self-empowerment and others will be
intimidated by the prospect or averse to it for whatever reason.

 * * FINANCES * * 
Most groups feel that the LDM will present no particular financial problems. 
Banks are accustomed to people building their own homes and are willing to
give loans for lot purchase and home construction.  Of course the credit
worthiness of individual households will be a big issue.

Some groups particularly favor LDM because it removes a tremendous financial
burden from the group.  The financial size of the project for the group is
only about a third of what it would be using the Danish model.  Granted the
financial burden is still there, its just broken up into household pieces and
is the responsibility of the individual households.

 * * COSTS * * 
There is wide disagreement about whether using LDM would be more expensive
than the Danish Model.  Some feel that the economies of scale associated with
the Danish Model are largely mythical.  Sherri at Eno Commons, however, has
calculated per unit savings of $7000 by using a standard house design and
contractor.

The freedom of members to build the house that they can afford as well as the
opportunity for sweat equity are seen as big advantages of LDM.

 * * DEVELOPMENT * * 
A couple of groups that are more developer (project manager) driven see a
benefit in LDM because it greatly reduces the scope of the project.  These
are projects created by non-experienced folks that are cohousing-driven, not
profit-driven.  It will be possible to create an environment for cohousing
without the developer actually taking the whole project through to
completion.  This reduces the risk, responsibility, and effort  all of which
will still be substantial even using LDM.

 * * FURTHER DISCUSSION * * 
I welcome any of the survey respondents to correct my summarization or
elaborate on it.  Hope this is useful.


    Mac Thomson                         San Juan Cohousing
    Mac [at] HappyValley.com           Durango, Colorado


*** Continued in next message... ***


--Sent from HappyValley FirstClass BBS 904.246.9255