Re: New Urbanism and CoHousing | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Scott Cowley (scowley![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:43:44 -0500 |
A month ago we held a publicity event billed as a forum on architecture and community design. Many of the same issues as we have seen on this list were raised. However, one subject did not get addressed which I think is very relevant: what are the substantive differences between "New Urbanism" and cohousing? Retrofitting a suburb to encourage interaction is a good idea. But interaction is simply not enough. In a cohousing community we have at least 3 different factors which are crucial to the success of a modern community: 1. Built Consciousness. By this I mean a shared experience which builds a common set of understandings and sense of history leading to a sense of ownership in the place. 2. Intentional Governing Structure. Again this lends itself towards a crucial personal sense of investment. It also imposes a mechanism by which _Personal Accountability_ to a community is established. This is currently a rare phenomenon in American life. It creates a vital feedback loop by which the local community can remain a dynamic social organism. 3. Design by Future Residents (and future mortgage payors). Matt Kiefer correctly states that modernism is dead. Good riddance. Architectural egos are responsible for some of the worst problems of our environment. If architects are "Afraid of being rendered unnecessary" as Mr. Kiefer says, then they should shift their paradigm, and start seeing themselves as service providers instead of an elite with a license to impose their brand of aesthetics upon us. We cohousing groups are trying to hire an architect to first and simply _guide_ us...to take the time to patiently educate us about a reasonable range of choices. All the while respecting the fact that we are paying for, and demand, the right to make the main decisions. These would be a noble skills for an architect. However, this is also an emerging art form in itself, with much to learn. In my group's case we have seen that one of the most difficult skills for our architects is "active listening". As for Katie Allison Granju's "pot stirring", as well as other assertions of cohousing selectivity and elitism from Roger Montgomery, etc. I say speak for yourself. I have been trying to maintain a concern within the movement for what I consider to be its highest principles for a while now. 1. a better environmental model for housing, land and energy use, 2. a professed openness to the inclusion of those traditionally disenfranchised, 3. a local and democratic form of governance Maintaining more humane principles will always be a struggle within the confines of a capitalist system. As well as "affordability", this certainly includes our individual consciousness. If you happened to have ended up in a rich cohousing community you still have the responsibility to use that wealth well. But cohousing is not a welfare project. We are first trying to put a roof over our heads. Then run a neighborhood. Then be good. Whether or not cohousing becomes a major part of the housing stock in my country is an issue which may not be particularly germane. As Karl Marx suggested, we are all part of an historical process of social evolution (Dialectic Materialism), and cohousing happens to be people, finally taking charge, on the leading edge.
-
Re: New Urbanism and CoHousing Scott Cowley, October 20 1997
- Re: New Urbanism and CoHousing Paul Barton-Davis, October 21 1997
- Re: New Urbanism and CoHousing Kevin Wolf, October 21 1997
- Re: new urbanism and cohousing Scott Cowley, October 22 1997
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.