Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Community Size: Number of people

[David L. Mandel (75407.2361]

Rob asked about my signoff:

"I am wondering, why do you sometimes wish you were bigger?  What do you 
miss or not get having 67 people?"

First of all, I'm speaking only for myself. Though I think many other
Southsiders would agree with me, there are surely some who would not want us to
be any larger.

Some of it is material. A certain proportion of each unit's price was dedicated
to common facilities; more units would have meant more available for things we
don't have, like common office and guest space, more storage, a hot tub, etc. Of
course in our project, the limiting factor was space; none of us advocated
building more than 25 units on our 1.3 acres and the site was perfect in other
ways, so it wasn't a matter of great debate. 

(But there's this great spot in midtown Sacramento, almost a full city block. It
could easily support 50-60 units at around our same density. And the asking
price has dropped a lot. Any takers? We have lists of other Sacramentans who say
they'd like to live in cohousing, but so far, no core of burning souls with the
energy to make it happen.)

Also, it's often apparent that even slightly larger numbers could make a
difference in work burdens. As of now, typically a three-person cook team does a
meal a month. We have 40 adults, thus 13 meals per month, or about 3 a week.
With even 60 adults, we could have 4.5 meals a week. I don't think the cooking
burden would be that much more, plus with more available, attendance per meal
would probably be a bit lower, but we'd have the convenience of more meals
available.

Similarly with work teams for routine maintenance and special tasks: The extra
work seems marginal (maybe I'm a little naive here); more people to do it would
add convenience.

Socially, I feel comfortable with our current numbers, and I certainly agree
that a much larger group could diffuse relationships more into subgroups. But I
think there's a tradeoff that leans somewhat in favor of a larger group: Now
(and I imagine even if we were smaller) I'm much better friends with some than
with others. The greater the numbers, the more choices I have when seeking
friends from among my neighbors. Also, with a larger group there's bound to be
more turnover and more opportunity to find a way to add outside friends (a
frequent fantasy). Now going on two years, we've had no turnover of owners yet,
a fact of which we're actually proud. But it would be nice to have an occasional
opening.

On the perimeter of our block on the south, west and part of the east, there are
small houses whose back yards abut some of ours. A fantasy from the beginning
was that perhaps others who wanted to join us would buy them little by little,
or even that some of their current residents might want to do so. Maybe someday.
But we have a real limitation in the size of our common house, and despite our
wishes, the architect did not design it in a way conducive to expansion. And
some members, I think, do not want to see this happen. 

We actually will deal with the issue in a small way soon: One member has just
announced his intention to move across the street into part of a house he and
another member bought and are rehabbing. He wants to rent out his cohousing unit
for a while until he decides for sure to sell and finds an appropriate buyer.
And he wants to remain part of the community as far as participation in meals
and common area upkeep is concerned. The debates are already beginning over
dinner: About the rental of an entire unit (he and some others are already
renting out parts of their units); about whether to allow off-site members at
all, or perhaps allow only this one without setting a precedent; about whether
he should be assesed a partial homeowners fee as a condition of continued
participation, and if so, how much.

Comments on grappling with similar situations by others would be welcome.
Thanks.

David Mandel, Southside Park Cohousing.