Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Group meals and social networking in community

[Rob Sandelin (robsan]

Harry,
I would be curious where your "opinions" about the following come from. 
 It runs directly counter to my own experience in living where I do, 
and visiting a number of local intentional communities.

> If a cohousing group is betting on having a "shared facility" to have supper
>in etc. to affect all of the necessary social networking--there are then
>going to lose the bet! It's like having cream for your coffee--but no coffee.
>That is, the cream is analagous to having suppers together and expecting that
>to fulfill all of the interpersonal relationship stuff. Unfortunately, that
>approach will only fulfill about 3% of the social networking.

>The real 97% of social networking comes about because specific criteria are
>present in the design of the homes and the immediate neighborhood -- the
>"coffee".

My own experience, having lived in a cohousing community which has very 
little of the elements you further describe, also based on visiting 
several intentional communities  which have few if any of the other 
elements you have described gives me the opinion that eating together 
is much much more than 3% of the social networking - more closer to 40% 
in my opinion, again based on my own, somewhat limited experience.

My own experience further has given me to believe that the remaining 
60% is divided between site design elements and specific, deliberate 
activities which are designed for social networking such as community 
gatherings, rituals, meetings, parties, etc.
My experience has shown me, that it is very possible, and pretty 
common,  to have a vibrant, close, community of people, who have 
absolutely  none of the architectural elements you describe.  Most of 
the intentional communities I have visited have few if any of the 
architectural elements which are supposed to enhance social 
relationships, yet most  have very cohesive communities of people.  In 
wondering why this is, I came to my own conclusion that community 
(however we should decide to define that word) comes from the people 
and their intentions and commitments to the group and each other.  
Social networking can be enhanced by the architecture, but the 
relationships between people form independent of the site to a large degree.

That thesis, which I am continuing to define and test as I visit and 
learn from more communities, might explain why I have heard 
disappointments expressed, especially from some cohousing members, that 
the level of "community" where they live is less than  what they hoped 
or expected or wanted it to be.  My current thinking, is that people 
may believe that all the social engineering of the architects is going 
to build what they really want - closer relationships to their 
neighbors - "community".  Then they move in, and find out that it takes 
 more than that.

Rob Sandelin
Sharingwood