Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Cohousing exclusiveness

[Jim Nordgaard (jimn]

Melanie A. Duncan wrote:

> I think I understand that some developer might easily do a project
> that is merely a shadow of the true essence of co-housing, but as
> long as there is not DECEPTION in place I don't think this is
> necessarily a bad thing.

I agree, if there is no deception, it is not a bad thing.  Having
communal space is better than no communal space; it might just foster a
real community eventually.  However a community starts an ends with the
involvement of everyone in building the community; physical architecture
merely facilitates the process.

The common danger is always reporters who do not precisely know what
community really is, starts listening to developers who promise instant
communities by design, and the buyers who believe they can buy
themselves into a community.  When these "communities" fail, the media
will treat it as a failure of community building movements; such as
Cohousing.

As for the subject of exclusiveness; I believe that exclusiveness,
whether overtly, or by passive design, is counter to the concept of
cohousing and community.  This does not mean every community must be
completely diverse to the point of being representative of the general
population; but it must be genuinely, even actively, open to all
potential participants.  The biggest problem/challenge is income
diversity, since any developments are expensive, including new ones.  At
a minimum, Cohousing projects need to allow small units, which makes
them affordable as a per square footage rate.  This unfortunately still
leaves out low income families, who need larger units; probably the
biggest challenge to Cohousing diversity.  

-- 
Jim Nordgaard /\ jimn [at] jriver.com  /\ www.jimn.org
J. River, Inc. - Monterey Cohousing Community - Green Party of MN