Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: We're not coho?

[Nitsan Vardi (emi_nv]

Actually, there are a few cohousing projects in Denmark that have 
addressed the problem of integrating 'other social groups' into the 
cohousing project. I know of one, 'Thorshammer' in Skive, which (1) 
included smaller apartments for rental and (2) supported the 
establishment of a cohousing project nearby, based solel on rented 
apartments.

Still, one problem may be that by using a rental model you may take some 
of the 'intentional' basis out of cohousing. Here in Saettedammen there 
were apartments/rooms for rent for many years, not because it was planned 
this way - but because seperated couples were forced to support their 
economy by renting a part of the - generally too large - house. In some 
cases the tennants end up buying their own house when one becomes 
available. Others have not integrated - and left. Some people live as 
tennants for many years. So the rental apartments offer an opportunity to 
try the cohousing way of life - thus enriching the community,not only 
doing a social service.

Another thing - the Danish society is not as socially layered as others - 
and income may be rather high also for non-proffessionals. Still, 
Saettedammen's population consists of teachers, nurses, engineers and a 
some other academics. Others? one (1) cook is what we can boast of. The 
problem is not only economy - but obviously that only a certain kind of 
people are attracted to / capable of living in cohousing. So it IS a 
ghetto - but can we can neither force, nor attract other social groups.

                                                ___ __
Nitsan Vardi                                  \   \   \ \   \   \/  \  \
Electromagnetics Institute, bldg. 348              \   \ \   \  _\    __\
Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark      \          
Tel (+45)45881444, (+45)45253767, Fax (+45)45931634, e-mail nv [at] emi.dtu.dk
> 
> /* Shava goes into troublemaking mode: */
> It seems to me that most coho projects are narrowed in terms of one
> very important criterion -- class.  How many coho projects include
> low income housing?  I've heard of some.  Can you truly say that your
> community is the reflection of an open community when you don't include
> people of all social and economic classes?  As a note, our coho plans
> include (but may not eventually, due to economics) rental and barter
> quarters (i.e. some rental for money, and some rented for work done on
> behalf of the community).
> 
> So, I want to know, is this an architectural model, or a social model?
> If it's an architectural model, it's much less exclusive -- it means that
> any kind of group can adopt it.  If it's a social model where people who
> can afford to buy into houses in an architectural enclave, creating
> a nice community, how is it different (except by detail of architecture)
> from a suburban enclave?
> 
> I don't *think* that's what cohousing is.  But I think it's a question
> we need to address.  How does the cohousing community react when people
> say, this is just another form of yuppy enclave, that makes one feel 
> better about social consciousness than .8 acre lots?
> 
> Shava Nerad
> shava [at] ns.uoregon.edu
>