Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Elitist or Mainstream?

[Rob Sandelin (Floriferous]

The header of this mail makes me chuckle. I consider the mainstream to be 
elitist. Yes, people will want what cohousers have, eg closer community. 
However, this comes only from a commitment. You can build the real estate but 
it will not be a community of people who lives there. At least not in the 
definition of community that I use.  There is a nicely done condo in Bellevue, 
a town known for its upscaleness. On the outside from plan view, it could be a 
cohousing community. Nice pedestrian design, a central community center, even 
has a nicer kitchen setup than my own communities. 

The place is as dead as a doornail. The people who live there have no more 
connection to each other than a typical condo.  Switch to my favorite, bad 
design community example: The Weslayian community on Vashon Island. The homes 
are all totally separated from view of each other, you have to drive to go to 
the community center most rainy winter days. It has a Roaring sense of 
community.  Architecture does not make community happen. It can help if you 
already have the goal. You have to have the will and expectation for it, and 
the commitment to follow through on the hard parts. What makes cohousing tick 
is that people want it to be a community and so they put up with tremendous 
hurdles and hassles to get it. Believe me, nobody does this for any other 
reason unless you get paid. I work with forming communities a lot, and I 
understand their pain and tribulations. I also see the same vision repeated by 
each group, slightly different, but the same driving look in their eyes. They 
know what they want, and they know that Disney doesn't offer it.

Developers can co-opt the design, you will never co-opt the community. It aint 
for sale and can't be bought. You have to create it and make it yourself, a do 
it yourself project in self exploration and togetheress. And its the community 
aspect that is both attractive and repellent to people, so those whom are 
attracted will come and those who are repelled will go find another condo 
where people are not hanging out at dinner and talking about your aunts breast 
cancer, and consoling you and offering hopeful advice in how to cope.

Normal people don't share that kind of stuff with their neighbors. What are 
you, some kind of wierdo?  

Yep. And loving it.

Rob Sandelin
Celebrating 6 years living at Sharingwood: its not just a neighborhood, its an 
adventure. Come play!

----------
From:   cohousing-l [at] freedom.mtn.org on behalf of mkiefer [at] 
peabodybrown.com
Sent:   Tuesday, October 21, 1997 12:54 AM
Subject:        Elitist or Mainstream?



      Graham makes several intriguing comments about the social significance 
of cohousing.  I agree that cohousing has a  larger social significance (and 
maybe even a somewhat different one) than many realize.  It provides an 
anticipatory model for how to live in greater propinquity in the face of 
increased population and material scarcity. And it demonstrates that, in a 
world where widely shared belief systems play a diminishing role in 
fostering social cohesion, "community" must be built one project at a time.
     I also agree that cohousing is different from other utopian movements 
in that it seeks to be part of, and to influence, the mainstream.  This is 
part of its strength, but its important to realize that its also why 
cohousing groups haven't pushed the edge of the envelope more design-wise. 
I, too, hope and believe that they will in time, as the concept itself 
becomes less exotic.
     I also think its inevitable that cohousing will influence mainstream 
housing--and that many in the cohousing movement will lament this as 
"co-opting" cohousing ideals.
                         --Matt Kiefer
                            Peabody & Brown
                            Boston, Mass.
 -