Cohousing-L Mailing List: "Base Model" Cohousing - Hold the Options, Please

[Dan Suchman (71756.2661]

I continue to be amazed by the different things that people hear me saying, when
I thought I was making myself clear!  Am I writing poorly?  Is language so
inherently ambiguous that clear communication is hopeless?  Are people
responding to what they fear I MIGHT be saying, rather than to what I actually
said?  I suspect that each of these explanations might be contributing to the
communication gap.  In any event, I'll take another stab at it (sounds like the
punchline of a bad "O.J." joke):

Diane:  Thank you for owning the childhood origins of your aversions to the
words "practical" and "marketable".  I did not intend to use these terms as
tools of creative repression.  Rather, I meant only to suggest making the
benefits of cohousing available to the greatest number of people -- including
actors, musicians, dancers and other artists (as well as accountants, lawyers
and postal workers -- imply what you will about these jobs).   I suspect that
there are as many bad ideas tauted as "sensitive", "fair" and "green", as there
are bad ideas tauted as "practical" and "marketable".  Practicality and
marketablity don't hurt people -- bad ideas do (especially if they also made to
appear practical and marketable -- thereby drawing more people to them).

Zev:  I suggest only that we "stick to 'Base Model Cohousing'" until the idea
reaches and begins to benefit the mainstream.  I don't think I understand what
you mean by the statement ". . . group decision making and values (translated
into specific options) are mutually exclusive."  Could you explain this to me?
I disagree with your assertion that "Base Model" cohousing can only be created
by a spec developer.  Any group willing to set aside a few of their personal
beliefs (dogmas?), in pursuit of community, can create cohousing that has room
for most mainstream values.  And the proliferation of such communities, with or
without the "options,  would be a significant step toward reversing suburban
sprawl, consumption, isolation, fear and mistrust -- and toward fostering
interdependant cooperation between neighbors.  Why saddle cohousing with so much
non-essential baggage that it is doomed to remain the province of a small
"alternative" crowd.  How about thinking a little bigger-- about the potential
benefits of cohousing to practically everyone?  Such a univeral approach to
cohousing would still leave plenty of room for those passionate about their
special beliefs to create "sustainable, straw-bale, green, non-toxic, organic,
vegetarian, eco-feminist, no-nukes or EMFs, consensus-based, spiritual,
feelings-first, save-the-whales cohousing".   And more power to them!  (By the
way, Zev, I just re-read your post.  We seem to be in agreement on most issues.
Am I preaching to the choir?)

Peter:  You state, "I wonder if 'vanilla' is not as specialized as 'mocha
chocolate chip'."  Please substitute for "vanilla" whatever flavor helps make
clear to you the underlying message:  more people would probably like "plain"
cohousing than cohousing served "all the way".  I agree with you completely that
many folks would probably find objectionable "Roberts Rules of Order, meat and
potatoes and Monday night football."  (I could do just fine without any of
them).  However, I suspect that there many more people willing to live with
these mainstream icons than there are those who would live in a community of
"consensus, veggies, and dancing".  Fair enough?  Best wishes to you and your
forming community.

Mac:  Thank you for mentioning two interesting and important issues that were
discussed at the recent conference --  1) Making It Easier, and 2) Cohousing
Sales and Resales.  I am currently working together with some other Burning
Souls on both issues.   On the "Making It Easier" front, I am trying to create a
written model relationship between core groups and developers, which can be
replicated (with slight variations) by groups across the U.S. (my geographic
focus area).  I hope to be publishing more about this within the coming year.
On the Cohousing Sales and Resales issue, I am currently working with Joani
Blank, Denise Meier and others on creating a database of national sales and
resales.  You site the number of units currently on the market as possible
evidence of weak demand (compared to supply) for cohousing.   Time that units
spend "on the market" is mainly a function of pricing (the willingness or
reluctance of owners to face market realities).  I suggesting that more
revealing is information about purchase prices and rates of appreciation of same
(as reflected in resales).   There is already a considerable amount of data
available.  I expect to have a pretty good handle on this information within the
coming year.

Dan Suchman
Winslow Cohousing
Bainbridge Island, WA