Cohousing-L Mailing List: Reply to B.Sandelin on coho cost as barrier (fwd)

['Judith Wisdom (wisdom]

'Judith Wisdom wrote:
> From wisdom Sat Aug 12 06:35:17 1995
> From: wisdom [at] pobox.upenn.edu ('Judith Wisdom)
> Posted-Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 06:35:15 -0400
> Received-Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 06:35:15 -0400
> Subject: Reply to B.Sandelin on coho cost as barrier
> To: cohousing-l [at] uci.com
> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 06:35:15 -0400 (EDT)
> Cc: wisdom ('Judith Wisdom)
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9]
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Length: 9014      
> 
> 
> Rob Sandelin wrote:
> > 
> > Judith Wisdom Wrote about her situation and came to the conclusion that 
> > what she needs is cohousing.  I read what she wrote and came to a 
> > different conclusion.
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I  (J.W.)reply first to thank you for your thoughts but to clarify and thus 
> try to elicit and 
> challenge your reasons for coming to a different conclusion than I did, 
> given what I said in my original post and the conclusion I reached .  It 
> also raises the issue of larger context and its effect on the ability to 
> build community, of which coho is one example.  And to challenge values 
> in action in current coho, which exclude people just like the larger 
> socieity does, by income.
> 
> > 
> > Judith, what I hear you saying is what you want is community, but you 
> > can't afford cohousing community.  There are hundreds of other 
> > communities besides cohousing around, many offering great advantages 
> > for low or non-income folks, and many providing much more community and 
> > support than cohousing offers.
> 
> It is not at ALL clear to me that cohousing provides less community than 
> I wish.  For while community is intentional in both setups, the 
> ecological/physical community in coho is essential to my desires (and 
> apparently 
> to  all those who choose coho as their kind of community.  My mobility is a 
> bit limited often and, also, although most of my life I was perfectly 
> mobile and worked and went to school and did lots of other things, I now 
> have to stay at home, working at a new career (as a ghostwriter and 
> editor) and writing.  Having activities very nearby and neighbors nearby 
> would afford me the opportunity to interact and socialize that I now 
> have only with friends who, because they don't live close, I don't see 
> often enough.  I would hope and assume in coho the seeing, even the 
> casual hello from close people, would happen daily.  Less likely with a 
> community of the sort you suggest.   Hence, such 
> nonphysically based communities would provide less of what I need, not 
> more, than would coho. Physical proximity in addition to spritual and 
> shared intentionality of communal spirit is the key.  And the former is 
> abset in what you depict as a more reasonable alternative for me.
> 
> As for "support," which has so many meanings it almost is meaningless to 
> use without defining, what concrete support I net, I get mostly via 
> "buying" it.  Some, like delivered food and housecleaning I could 
> continue to do.  In fact, in some cohos I would bet people busy working 
> and shcooling would love to share  in the cost of hired help.  I also 
> know that some people are talking of allowing artists and writers to move 
> in at reduced costs and bartering with services, like housecleaning and 
> gofering.  
> 
> The community you suggest, which sounds lovely in its way, also wouldn't 
> solve another of my problems: living in very small urban high rise digs 
> when I want to live amongs grass and trees (be more in touch with natural 
> surroundings-god that's how I've lived so much of my life and it is 
> essential to me, absolutely essential) and see neighbors and talk to 
> them when we each want to talk.  But were I to move to such an area 
> alone, outside of coho, I would be in pleasanter surroundings but yet more 
> isolated.  Again, coho is the answer for that.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Check out the 1995 Communities Directory at your local bookstore.  
> > Beside listing cohousing groups there are so many more options 
> > available.  I also suggest the book, Building community anywhere, 
> > finding support in a fragmented world. by Shaffer and Annundsen.  
> 
> I have the l995 CD, which is where I found out about this list.  Maybe I 
> haven't plumbed its depths deep enough, but the only community of the 
> sort you described is one in an area not hugely far from where I 
> currently live but much too far for me to be a part of.  (They 
> have a yearly bash in early September and I am going.  However, everone 
> even out there has their own home, not within close distance and they 
> tend to see each other maybe once a month, although some try to get 
> together once a week.  It's good in terms of promoting 
> community, but nowhere near what I want. Besides it's in a molto 
> expensive little town (quite beautiful) outside Phila. Again, the essential 
> core of 
> what addresses my desire is not just people but proximity, everyday 
> proximity.
> 
> I will get the other book you mention, for it seems relevant to coho and 
> non=coho community.  And I'd like to find out more about the group you 
> mention.
> 
> However, it's interesting to contemplate the relationship of larger 
> context to intentional community of all sorts=coho and non-coho.  Some areas 
> and cities 
> have an ethos that is more or less conducive.  I live in Phila and have 
> lived elsewhere and have known people who have lived here and in NY and 
> also the west and northwest.  We all agree.  Philadelphia is one of the 
> coldest cities re associating and forming association.  As a sociologist 
> (albeit not an urban sociologist)I 
> feel undone in that I haven't been able to analyse it historically or 
> sociologically.  But what I'm saying I'd bet big bucks that the kind of 
> community you suggest (which, as I said, I don't think would meet my 
> desires and needs as much as coho by a long shot) would be far less 
> possible, maybe even impossible to organize in Phila even though it seems to 
> have 
> taken such good hold in Seattle.  I know people there and have a hunch 
> about the ethos and mentality.  I could give example after example of the 
> sorts of isolating things and geist that exist here.  It has been true 
> for years.  I do have some ideas why , but that's another story.
> 
> I also strongly believe that if coho doesn't try to find solutions to 
> including more affordable units in each community, or find ways to make 
> some units available at reduced cost, they 
> will be ghetto=ized and exclusive in the same way so much housing is in 
> unintentional noncommunal neighborhoods.  That's a pity.  Especially when 
> it excludes people like myself who, but for a financial situation 
> secondary to an illness, would be coho types (whatever that is) not to 
> mention would especially benefit from coho (the proximity of association).
> 
> These are not easy issues but touch on the problem of new forms 
> reproducing the problems of the larger society in which they exist, and 
> thus excluding people who get excluded from so much already.  I'm not 
> saying coho should or could solve all the problems extant in our 
> society.  It simply couldn't.  But there are some problems very 
> "adjacent" to the problems it seeks to and does solve, that it could 
> (dare I even suggest should) reach to solve, which I THINK is the one I 
> brought up.
> 
> This reply is not a rejection of your thoughts and suggestions.  I 
> appreciate them.  But it is a disagreement with your notion that the type 
> of community you suggest would be what I want and/or need would be more 
> appropriate or better than 
> what I currently think (i.e., coho).  Although as I continue to explore 
> and learn I might change my mind, but on the face of it my conclusion 
> remains unchanged after considering what you laid out.
> 
> I'd surely connect with such a virtual community as you suggest, but in 
> Phila, given what I said, I would not try to organize one.  I have 
> organized many things but that seems too, too formidable.  And I want to 
> concentrate on getting new digs as well as community if it's possible.
> If anyone in Phila is reading this you can however count on me to be 
> helpful if you have the wish and the energy to make a try.
> 
> BELOW IS BOB'S DESCRIPTION OF THE NON=PROXIMITY COMMUNITIES:
>  Lots 
> > of people are creating "virtual" communities by hosting events and 
> > gatherings of people who share the same desire, to relate to people on 
> > a more deeper level.  Hold a communities interest potluck at a local 
> > community center or church and put fliers up at the organic food places 
> > or health food stores. It will take 2 hours of your time to do this, 
> > and I would bet you will get a good turn out, especially if the flier 
> > is worded to attract those who are interested in community.
> > 
> > Cohousing is NOT the only form of community.  You can create a 
> > community around you, still live where you do, and gain much benefit 
> > from expanding your associations.  There is a thriving communities 
> > support group in Seattle, which was started by a single woman who 
> > wanted to contact others who were interested in getting together and 
> > simply talking about community.  It has now broken into 4 subgroups, 
> > because it got so large they couldn't hold a potluck in anyones house.
> > 
> 
> > Rob Sandelin
> > Northwest Intentional Communities Association
> > 
> > 
> > 
> I think, quite apart from my wish, this would be a useful thread to 
> continue to periodically look at, since it goes to the heart of 
> inclusiveness, exclusiveness, and also why coho is unique as a community 
> form, and in what ways.
> 
> Judith Wisdom  
> In Phila in a very nonintentional noncommunity, but searching
> wisdom [at] pobox.upenn.edu
>