| Cohousing article from the SF Chronicle 10/15/97 | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Denise Meier and/or Michael Jacob (dmmj wco.com)
|
|
| Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:45:16 -0500 | |
_________________________________________________________________
=20
Wednesday, October 15, 1997 =B7 Page 1/Z1 =A91997 San Francisco Chronicl=
e
_________________________________________________________________
=20
=20
It Takes a Village
A decade after the concept was imported from Scandinavia, cohousing communi=
ties
are becoming part of the Bay Area landscape. The movement is the '90s versi=
on
of the old-fashioned neighborhood
Kathryn Drew
=20
It all began in Davis in 1991 when Muir Commons opened as the first
``built from scratch'' cohousing community in the United States.
=20
Here was a village where neighbors knew each other, went out of
their way to be friendly and even dined together. A community where
children could play safely and freely, where doors could be left
unlocked.
=20
Cohousing, a housing alternative based on the concept of
cooperative living, is designed to breed neighborliness. Whereas
most subdivisions space houses evenly and as far apart as possible,
in cohousing they are situated in clusters. Cars are parked at one
end of the property to make the grounds more people friendly.
Walkways connect the homes to each other and to the common house, a
shared facility where residents can dine, gather socially, use the
facilities or just relax.
=20
Cohousing communities are typically planned and designed by
residents themselves. Individuals own their homes, but share common
grounds and facilities which can include a dining hall, play area,
garden, laundry room and more.
=20
The community is managed by monthly meetings and committees;
decisions are made by consensus. Often, members meet for common
meals and rotate shopping, cooking and cleanup duties.
=20
The cohousing movement has attempted to address the changing
demographics and needs of society. Based on the premise that people
really do need community, it's the '90s version of the
old-fashioned neighborhood.
=20
In the 10 years since cohousing's inception in Berkeley, the
movement has been slowly gaining momentum. Now, more than a dozen
groups in Northern California are either living in cohousing or
planning a development.
=20
Doyle Street CoHousing opened in Emeryville in 1992. Berkeley
Cohousing was completed in June of this year and Old Oakland
CoHousing, planned at the site of the historic Swan's Market in
downtown Oakland, will begin construction this fall.
=20
In Sonoma County, two more cohousing communities are coming
together: Two Acre Wood in Sebastopol and Forty Oaks CoHousing
Community in Petaluma.
=20
Nationally, there are 24 completed cohousing projects, with
estimates of another two dozen in the construction phase and as
many as 150 in the early stages of planning and development.
=20
And the world is taking notice. This year, cohousing developments
(including Berkeley Cohousing) won six of 63 Building Innovation
for Home Ownership awards, a national competition sponsored by U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
=20
``People are realizing that cohousing is clearly not just a flash
in the pan,'' says Don Lindemann, editor of CoHousing, the
quarterly journal of the CoHousing Network, and a resident of
Berkeley Cohousing.
=20
Even trend guru Faith Popcorn predicts that cohousing will become
more popular in the future. In her 1996 book ``Clicking,'' she
talks about a rise in what she calls ``communal clanning,'' where
people seek like-minded folks for cooperative living. She envisions
``cohousing counselors'' similar to social workers, who match
people with communities, and a cohousing clearinghouse.
=20
NOT A NEW CONCEPT
=20
Cohousing may be a new word in some people's vocabulary, but the
idea has been around in one form or another for hundreds of years.
Some people began living collectively long before the word
``cohousing'' ever came along. Remember communes? ``The United
States has a long record of attempts at collective forms of living,
dating back into the 18th century,'' says Michael Teitz, professor
of city and regional planning at the University of California at
Berkeley.
=20
``There were utopian settlements of all kinds throughout history.
Cohousing is tapping into this historic strand. We are not just an
individualistic society.''
=20
This most recent incarnation of collective living began in Denmark
about 20 years ago. There a group of individuals and families built
``living communities'' which included both common and separate
areas, so people could live collectively while still maintaining
autonomy and privacy. Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett, a
husband/wife architect team, observed these communities in
Scandinavia. They were so impressed by the concept, which they
called ``cohousing,'' that they decided to pioneer it in the United
States. In 1988, they founded the CoHousing Co., a Berkeley-based
architectural and design firm, to help get such projects off the
ground. Their book, ``Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing
Ourselves,'' has since become the bible of the movement. And they
practice what they preach: Today McCamant and Durrett are residents
of Doyle Street CoHousing.
=20
ROCKY ROAD
=20
While cohousing may be a dream, building it can be a nightmare.
=20
Potential obstacles include zoning ordinances, neighborhood
opposition and financing. The word itself can bring a look of
skepticism or bewilderment to the faces of the most experienced
lenders and city officials. And neighborhood residents are often
leery of these projects. It sounds too much like a commune. Once
the concept is explained, however, many people embrace it -- or at
least don't oppose it. Richard Spitler, former planning director
for Sebastopol, recalls the approval process for the Two Acre Wood
cohousing group.
=20
Although the majority of the planning commissioners were supportive
of the cohousing project, Spitler recalls, there was mixed reaction
among Sebastopol residents. People were concerned about the density
of the cohousing community as well as the community itself.
=20
``People feared that a hippie commune was going to happen in their
neighborhood,'' recalls Spitler. ``But through a series of
meetings, the (Two Acre Wood) group was able to show they weren't a
bunch of wild- haired cult figures. They were just normal people.''
=20
Two Acre Wood is now under construction and should be completed by
spring.
=20
Berkeley Cohousing, an infill project, actually improved its
neighborhood, says Stephen Barton, senior planner for the city of
Berkeley. Where there was once a bunch of rundown, neglected
apartments, there is now a beautiful community.
=20
The only real snag in the approval process was drawing up an
amendment to the Berkeley zoning ordinance limiting condominium
conversion, Barton says. Because of their shared facilities, most
cohousing communities are legally considered condominiums.
=20
``We would love to have another cohousing development come in,''
Barton says.
=20
FINANCIAL RISKS
=20
Financing is a major obstacle to getting cohousing built. Unless
the group is partnered with a developer, members have to come up
with considerable cash on their own -- sometimes two years before
they can even hope to move into their homes.
=20
Construction loans for small, unknown projects are not easy to
find. Banks usually aren't thrilled with the idea of giving
construction loans to people who know very little about building.
The now-defunct Benicia cohousing group lost thousands of dollars
in the early '90s because its land deal fell through shortly before
construction was to begin. This is not uncommon. CoHousing journal
editor Don Lindemann says he knows of at least two other instances
in which groups lost money because of circumstances beyond their
control. He himself was dubious about putting up the $25,000
required from each household to secure the Berkeley site before any
assurances that city approvals would be coming.
=20
``It takes a real leap of faith to be a cohousing pioneer,'' says
Lindemann.
=20
Not to mention considerable bucks. In fact, the movement has
sometimes been criticized for creating a new version of the gated
community, serving educated, financially endowed, white,
middle-class people. Advocates, however, argue that social and
racial diversity will come with time.
=20
``There's too much individual risk for people without the help of a
developer who can spearhead the project, make a land-use plan and
assume the financial risk inherent in any real estate deal,''
argues Jack Felson, president of Marin Green Development Corp. and
developer of Deer Island Village, a cohousing- type development
under construction in Novato. As a developer, Felson was careful
not to use the word ``cohousing'' during the initial stages of his
project, which features permaculture landscaping, an ecological
approach to land maintenance. Instead, Felson prefers the term
``village'' to describe his community, acknowledging the negative
connotation of anything that remotely sounds like a commune.
Indeed, developer interest may ultimately be the key to the long-
term success of cohousing.
=20
``What California, a state dominated by industry giants such as
Kaufmann and Broad, needs is more medium-size developers like
Colorado's Wonderland Builders,'' says Kathryn McCamant of the
CoHousing Co. Wonderland has successfully developed and built
several cohousing communities in Colorado with plans for more in
the future.
=20
NOT FOR ALL
=20
Cohousing, however, isn't for everyone -- and it doesn't purport to
be.
=20
``You have to be able to find something in it that you otherwise
couldn't,'' says McCamant.
=20
Now that a number of communities have been up and running for
several years, the initial enthusiasm has been somewhat tempered by
the realities. It's far from utopia. Judging by the results of a
national survey, however, the majority of people who live in
cohousing are getting what they need from it.
=20
The survey revealed flaws such as frustration with the development
process, too many meetings and a loss of privacy. (Some people felt
``on view'' going to and from their homes.)
=20
Other complaints concerned common dining. People said the dining
hall was too noisy and too distracting for relaxed dining, that it
felt too functional and not cozy. And people who lived near the
common house cited noise as a problem.
=20
Still, those surveyed said the benefits of cohousing outweigh the
negatives and gave cohousing a rating of 8 or 9 on a satisfaction
scale of 10. Some 80 percent said they would live in cohousing
again if circumstances forced them to move.
=20
Even so, most collective living enterprises throughout history have
ultimately failed. But, points out UC Berkeley's Michael Teitz,
``The cohousing movement definitely has its feet on the ground. It
broadens the choices available for housing, and that's good.
Whether it will end up being a small, unique living experiment or a
long-term housing solution, only time will tell.''
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
=20
WHO CHOOSES TO BECOME PART OF A COHOUSING COMMUNITY?
=20
Cohousing attracts a cross section of people in various stages of
life: new parents, single parents, empty nesters, isolated
urbanites and disaffected suburbanites. All, however, are seeking
the same thing: a richer living environment.
=20
``I really believe it's a better way to live, especially for older
people,'' says David Noton, a retired software entrepreneur who
lives at Forty Oaks CoHousing Community, a development under
construction in Petaluma. ``You need community. As an empty nester,
I think it's important to have children around.''
=20
Parents of young children are attracted to the close-knit, safe
environment -- similar, many say, to what they had when they were
growing up.
=20
``It's heaven for my 5-year-old son,'' says Tom Lent, a Berkeley
Cohousing resident and former energy policy analyst for Greenpeace.
``He can run over to his friend's house without holding my hand or
getting in the car.''
=20
For some, cohousing offers a sense of family.
=20
``My 4-year-old daughter is an only child,'' says Denise Meier, who
will be moving into Sebastopol's Two Acre Wood. ``I really like the
idea of `pseudo siblings' for her.''
=20
The shift toward telecommuting and working at home has reawakened a
desire for people to know their neighbors. When people are home all
day, without the social outlet of the office, they're more
interested in finding out who lives next door.
=20
Meier, who works at home as a programmer, says her job can be very
isolating.
=20
She likes the fact that there will be people just outside her door
she can talk to.
=20
Others, like David Dobkin, read about cohousing and found the idea
appealing. When Dobkin, a financial planner, heard about the new
Berkeley Cohousing group in 1994, he began attending regular
meetings. Shortly after, he and his wife sold their Oakland house
of 20 years and moved in while construction was still going on. His
enthusiasm still has not waned.
=20
``The best thing about cohousing is that you're around people you
care about. It's like an extended family,'' says Dobkin, waving to
his wife, Donna, as she tidies the common house kitchen that
evening. It's her night on cleanup duty.
=20
``The heart of cohousing is the common dining,'' says Kathryn
McCamant, co-founder of the CoHousing Co.
=20
Residents work out a rotation among themselves for kitchen duty.
This means each resident plans, shops, cooks and cleans up for
about one meal a month in exchange for not having to cook all the
other days -- not a bad deal. Meals cost a few dollars each.
=20
Joshua Simon of Emeryville's Doyle Street CoHousing cites the
common dinners as one of cohousing's biggest advantages. ``I was
eating out four or five nights a week,'' says Simon, project
manager for the East Bay Asian Local Development Corp. Simon, who
once lived in Oakland's Rockridge neighborhood, only knew a handful
of his neighbors then.
=20
``Now I come home from work, and three nights a week, dinner's on
the table at 7 o'clock.'' ``People think we eat every meal
together,'' says McCamant, a resident of Doyle Street CoHousing,
addressing concerns about too much togetherness. ``But that's just
not the case. In reality, it's about three dinners a week.'' The
Forty Oaks CoHousing Community in Petaluma opted not to have a
common dining room.
=20
``I found the common dining rooms I visited to be a little
sterile,'' says Noton. Instead, their small group, which they hope
will grow to 10 households, rotates meals from house to house,
``sort of like a dinner club.''
=20
Indeed, cohousing amenities are dependent on the site and the needs
of the residents. Common house facilities can include an office, a
kids playroom, a teen room, an exercise room, an arts and crafts
room, a laundry room, a workshop, a greenhouse, a garden, a
swimming pool and tennis courts
=20
--amenities usually not available in typical housing developments.
Some communities have eschewed a common house for economic reasons;
one group allows each residence its own garage. Though cohousing
can take many shapes and forms, each community shares one important
factor: residents who have come together intentionally and are
committed to the concept of community.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
=20
IT TAKES TIME TO CREATE A COMMUNITY FROM SCRATCH
=20
Building a community with a group of people is a lengthy, sometimes
tedious and frustrating process that can take from two to five
years. But that's the price cohousing folks pay for being involved
in each step of development and reaching decisions by consensus.
=20
It's natural selection at work -- only the truly committed survive.
=20
``One of the things the cohousing industry needs to do is to figure
out how to get these projects up and running more quickly,''
comments David Dobkin of Berkeley CoHousing, who lived at the site
while construction was still under way.
=20
Few who have been involved in cohousing would argue that point.
=20
``It's a very difficult process,'' says Tom Lent, one of the few
remaining members of the original Berkeley Cohousing group. Lent
acted as site manager during the construction of the project.
=20
``We all had to wear two hats -- developer and buyer -- and living
in the middle of a construction site wasn't easy,'' says Lent.
``But the rewards are tremendous. We learned a lot about the group
process.''
=20
Sebastopol's Two Acre Wood group, together since March of 1994,
persevered despite failing to acquire either of the first two
parcels of land they wanted -- one in Sebastopol, the other in
Cotati.
=20
The first, their ``dream site,'' as Denise Meier, spokeswoman for
the group, calls it, fell through because of zoning. At the Cotati
site, the group could not raise funds in time to buy the land.
Eventually, the group of 14 households purchased another lot,
smaller than they'd hoped for, in Sebastopol. Two Acre Wood is
under construction and should be completed next spring.
=20
Despite the setbacks, Meier, a computer programmer, says she has
enjoyed the process. ``It's been a neat experience for me -- to
learn to love the people even if they drive you nuts sometimes.''
=20
MAKING DECISIONS TOGETHER
=20
Nina Falk, a geriatric care manager who lives in Berkeley
Cohousing, says she learned a valuable lesson through collective
decision making.
=20
``People really can reach difficult decisions by consensus. It
gives you hope for the world.''
=20
But decision making can consume hundreds of hours. The most
innocuous agenda item is not exempt from a collective vote.
=20
Jan Heiderer, formerly of the Bay Area, recalls attending a
planning meeting for the now-defunct Benicia cohousing group
several years ago, when she and her husband were seriously
interested in cohousing.
=20
``The topic that night was sinks, and whether they should be
porcelain or stainless steel,'' recalls Heiderer, a travel
consultant and mother of two, who now lives in Boulder, Colo. After
about 2 1/2 hours of discussion, I said, `I'm outta here.' And that
was just one detail.''
=20
Heiderer hasn't completely given up on cohousing, however. She and
her husband recently visited the Nyland Cohousing Community in
Colorado, which has been up and running for four years. They were
impressed with the large community garden, stunning vistas and the
freedom with which the children roamed.
=20
``The timing isn't quite right for us now, but maybe in the
future,'' she says.
=20
PROFESSIONAL HELP NEEDED
=20
Kathryn McCamant of the CoHousing Co. and others in the industry
advise fledgling groups to hire professional counsel early on. A
good lawyer, development consultant and architect are essential.
=20
Do your homework. For example, find out how land is zoned before
getting too attached to it. Try to negotiate a lease option with
the landowner -- something developers do all the time -- before
spending a lot of money on feasibility studies or consultants. If
your project will require a public hearing for zoning, be
proactive. Meet with the community before the project comes up on
the planning department agenda. McCamant goes into every project
expecting opposition because neighborhoods are generally
conservative. ``No one wants anything built in their back yard,''
she says. Be realistic about housing costs. Cohousing is not
necessarily ``affordable housing,'' except in some isolated cases.
Prices generally reflect the housing market in the area.
=20
Prospective members can expect to put up around $1,000 or more per
household initially -- a step that often separates the committed
from the not-so-committed.
=20
To purchase land and secure a construction loan, members become
developers and are asked to come up with considerable cash up front
-- probably around 20 percent of the value of your proposed home.
This happens months, even years, in advance of moving into a
completed community. Many people aren't in a position to do so.
=20
``These early communities have helped break ground for future
communities,'' McCamant points out. As city officials, bankers and
developers become more familiar with the concept, she believes
groups will face fewer obstacles and projects will be completed
faster.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
=20
AND THEN THERE ARE THOSE WHO WALK AWAY
=20
In the Bay Area, as some families were just settling into their
brand-new cohousing homes, others were already leaving.
=20
Doyle Street CoHousing in Emeryville has had a turnover of nine
units out of 12 in five years. Almost half the original Muir
Commons group in Davis has moved out. The reasons have been mostly
practical: school and jobs. Most of the early residents were UC
Davis graduate students. But others moved for more personal
reasons.
=20
Hannah Hunter and her family, some of the first Muir Commons
residents, were involved in the project from the beginning. But
after 2 1/2 years of planning and five years of living
cooperatively, she says, it was time for them to move on.
=20
As the children grew older and activities took them outside the
home, the safe and nurturing cohousing environment became less
important. And the Hunters physically outgrew their
1,380-square-foot home.
=20
Hunter, an artist who works at home, says she needed more privacy
and more time for introspection.
=20
CLOSE QUARTERS
=20
``Not since undergraduate school had I lived in such close quarters
with people,'' says Hunter, recalling the move into cohousing. ``My
personal boundaries had to be radically adjusted. It was sort of an
experiment for me, to find out if I was really an extrovert. I
found out I'm not. There was a lot of adjustment that first year.''
=20
Hunter still looks back fondly on her cohousing experience and
stresses the benefit of the supportive environment for parents of
young children.
=20
``It was a natural transition for us (to move out). We wanted to be
more independent, but we also want to keep the ties,'' says Hunter,
who now lives with her family just two blocks from Muir Commons.
=20
TIME TO MOVE ON
=20
Another former Muir Commons resident, Julia Ingels, says her family
outgrew the community both emotionally and physically.
=20
``I began to feel a little guilty because, as we became more
involved in the Waldorf School community, I wasn't giving as much
as I thought I should'' to the Muir Commons community, says Ingels.
=20
Though Ingels, a kindergarten teacher, says she would live in
cohousing again, she would lobby to change some aspects. For
instance, she would like larger lots for individual homes and less
common land, so people could maintain their own gardens and
landscaping.
=20
She would make the common house smaller (the Muir Commons common
house is 3,600 square feet) for practical reasons such as
maintenance and cleaning, and she would prefer a smaller community.
=20
TOO MANY DEMANDS
=20
Ingels felt the demands of the 26 households were too much. After
cooking rotation, meetings and committee duties, she felt there
wasn't time for much else.
=20
And, as convenient as the common dining was, her family eventually
cut back to dining collectively only on the weekends.
=20
``Seven o'clock was too late for my kids to eat,'' explains Ingels.
=20
``And sometimes the conversation at the table wasn't appropriate
for children. I also found it took away from our time together as a
family.''
=20
Ingels misses some aspects of cohousing, such as seeing the other
women in the community on a daily basis. When she went house
hunting, she looked for some aspects of cohousing, including a
kitchen in front and a front porch, so she can watch people go by.
=20
She also planted her vegetable garden in the front yard instead of
the back to make interaction with her neighbors easier.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
=20
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COHOUSING COMMUNITIES
=20
Updated lists of cohousing communities are printed in each issue of
CoHousing, the quarterly journal of the CoHousing Network (see
below). Visitors should call before visiting communities.
=20
--Berkeley Cohousing, 2220 Sacramento St. (near Bancroft Way),
Berkeley. Fourteen units on 3/4 acre; urban location. Includes
common house with dining room, one guest room and children's
playroom. Contact Nina Falk, (510) 549-3749.
=20
-- Concord Oasis E-CoHousing, 994 Oak Grove Road (near Whitma
Road), Concord. Potential for six households on 3/4 acre. Two
completed houses; common house with dining space under
construction. Contact Mark DeMaio, (510) 687-2560.
=20
-- Deer Island Village, Windwalker Way (off Olive Avenue), Novato.
Eighteen detached homes with garages on 18 acres, with permaculture
landscaping. Construction in progress. Will include common house
with dining hall, office, library, exercise room, indoor and
outdoor children's play areas, swimming pool and tennis court.
Contact Jack Sherwood, (415) 989-6189.
=20
-- Doyle Street CoHousing, 5514 Doyle St. (near 55th Street),
Emeryville. Renovated warhouse with 12 units; dining room, kitchen,
children's playroom, workshop and hot tub. Contact Joani Blank,
(510) 655-7399.
=20
-- Forty Oaks CoHousing Community, near intersection of King Road
and Queens Lane, Petaluma. Ten homes on 16 acres. One home
completed. Will include swimming pond with beach house, children's
outdoor play area and community gardens. Contact David Noton, (707)
765-9383.
=20
-- The Grail Housing Community, 2035 E. San Antonio St. (near
Jackson Avenue), San Jose. Thirty-five units of subsidized housing
for sale to low- and moderate-income families, on 2.4 acres in
urban location. Construction in progress. Will include community
re- source center and children's center for use by residents and
larger community. Contact Fran Hereth, (415) 552-2241.
=20
-- Muir Commons, 2222 Muir Woods Place (at Denali Drive), Davis.
First cohousing project in the country; 26 units on three acres.
Includes dining room, children's room, lounge, multipurpose room,
workshop, guest room, hot tub and orchard. Contact Diane Kallas,
(916) 757-2347.
=20
-- Old Oakland CoHousing, downtown at newly renovated, historic
Swan's Market at Ninth and Washington streets. Twenty units.
Construction to begin this fall. Will include dining room, common
garden, workshop, guest room, and indoor and outdoor children's
play areas. Seeking residents. Contact Joani Blank, (510) 655-7399
or Jeanne Dunn, (510) 649-7559.
=20
-- Southside Park Cohousing, Fifth Street at T Street, Sacramento.
Twenty-five Victorian- style duplexes and triplexes in downtown
neighborhood. Includes dining room, sitting room, children's room
and teen room. Contact Susan Scott, (916) 446-5066.
=20
-- Two Acre Wood, Robinson Road near Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol.
Fourteen units in duplexes and triplexes on two acres. Construction
in progress. Plans include dining room, indoor and outdoor
children's play areas, lounge, organic garden, workshop and teen
room. Contact Denise Meier, (707) 824-0830.
=20
-- Valley Oaks Village, 1950 Wild Oak Lane (at Forest Avenue),
Chico. Twenty-eight homes on five acres. Includes dining room,
lounge, recreation room, outdoor swimming pool and garden. Contact
office, (916) 893-9379, or Mike Smith, (916) 343-5411.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
=20
RESOURCES
=20
ORGANIZATIONS
=20
--The CoHousing Co., founded by Kathryn McCamant and Charles
Durrett, an architecture and consulting firm specializing in
cohousing design and development. Services include architecture,
group formation, site search, acquisition, land development and
project management; (510) 549-9980.
=20
--The CoHousing Network, national organization that publishes the
CoHousing journal and sponsors cohousing workshops and conferences.
(510) 486- 2656. Web site: www.cohousing.org.
=20
PUBLICATIONS
=20
--``Clicking,'' by Faith Popcorn (HarperCollins, 1996, $12).
=20
--CoHousing, quarterly journal of the CoHousing Network. Includes
news about nationwide projects, reports from completed communities
and articles about aspects of cohousing. One-year subscription,
$25. Send check to the CoHousing Network, P.O. Box 2584, Berkeley,
Calif. 94702; (510) 486-2656.
=20
--``Cohousing, A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves,'' by
Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett (Ten Speed Press, 1994, $28).
History of cohousing in Denmark and the United States through 1994,
with case studies and photographs of five communities.
=20
--``The Cohousing Handbook,'' by Chris Hanson (Hartley & Marks
Publishers, 1996, $24.95), information on the nuts and bolts of
cohousing development; (800) 277-5887.
=20
--``Cohousing: Neighborhoods for People,'' a 20-minute video on
cohousing, explains the concept and includes interviews with
residents in many North American communities. $44. Contact Rocky
Mountain CoHousing Association, 1705 14th St. No. 160, Boulder,
Colo. 80302; (303) 584-3237.
=20
--Cohousing Resource Guide, information on group process,
recruitment, site planning and development. $10. Contact Rob
Sandelin, 22020 E. Lost Lake Road, Snohomish, Wash. 98290.
=20
SEMINAR
=20
--Introductory Seminar. The next slide show will be held at 7 p.m.
October 22 at the Cohousing Co., 1250 Addison St. (at Bonar
Street), Berkeley. $5 donation requested. A weekend workshop will
be held October 25-26. For reservations, call (510) 549-9980.
_________________________________________________________________
=20
Searches The Gate News Page The Gate Sports Page Feedback The Gate
=20
=A9 The Chronicle Publishing Company
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.