Cohousing-L Mailing List: group formation and affordability

[REUER,JOHN PHILLIP,MR (BNZ3]

I've recently returned from a "tour" of several cohousing communities
as part of my research into cohousing affordability, and would like to
post a few questions regarding the potential impact of group formation
on affordability.

While it's not easy to measure the effect of group development on final
unit costs, I can see at least three areas of group development and main
tenance which can impact costs:

1)Initial core group demographics
While lower- and moderate-income members may not be able to contribute
substantially to pre-development funds, their concrete presence will
help the entire group make the kinds of compromises (higher unit
standardization, smaller units, higher density, less-expensive materials
, fewer common amenities, etc.) which are necessary for affordable
development. The idea is that the lower the amount a household is able
to afford, (within reason,) the more affordable development strategies a
group will be willing to utilize. This is especially true if the lower-
and moderate-income members are somehow instrumental in the development
process.

2)Group Size
Someone recently posted a message in which they said they wouldn't mind
if their community were larger than their 67 residents for several
reasons, including the advantage of having a larger source of funds to
draw from for improvements and amenities. The two largest communities I
visited, Nyland and Pioneer Valley, did have the most common amenities
(of the eight I visited.) A larger group would also seem to benefit
most from the economies of scale opportunities.Does anyone have thoughts
on what an ideal size for a cohousing community might be, from an
affordability point of view.

3)Member Recruitment and Maintenance
The way in which a group recruits and maintains it's members has bearing
on when the group will be ready to option or buy a site, hire
professionals, talk to lenders, and pre-sell the units. There are
several key components of this process. Fritz Radandt has identified
three: creating awareness, managing responses, and facilitating member-
ship. Rob Sandelin has described four: good group process, realistic
financial expectations, flexible participation requirements, and
preventing burnout. I want to suggest that conscious awareness of who is
recruited and careful group maintenance can impact affordability.

I would appreciate any responses to these obsevations. If you don't want
respond to the list, email me @ bnz3 [at] musicb.mcgill.ca.

Thanks to everyone who has helped so far. Until later,

John-Phillip Reuer