retrofit cohousing vs. co-nbhd | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: paul kilduff (paul_kilduff![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:38:41 -0600 (MDT) |
On Sunday, 15 August, 1999, I wrote > > > > Same here, except in our case it's coneighborhood vs. new > > development/retrofit (the difference is between buying one house at at >time, > > with possible rentals, and a comprehensive project, whether rehabbing > > existing building(s) or building from the ground up). I should never have used the phrase, "the difference is..." I did not intend to instruct, only to clarify the way we framed the issue. Our definition of retrofit as rehabbing is clearly WRONG, and I shall endeavor not to make the mistake again. I especially apologize for muddying the water by misusing terms that Fred Olson and others have worked so hard to clarify. Mea culpa! Fred Olson wrote: > >Paul's clarification seemed to me to need clarification... > >I've been promoting the term "retrofit cohousing" for several years. I >think Kevin Wolf of N Street Cohousing was the first person I heard use >the term. See: > >http://freenet.msp.mn.us/housing/cohousing/retrofit > >RETROFIT COHOUSING > >I use it to mean retrofiting the social relations between >people who live in close proximity in existing housing. To form a >cohousing community. "Close proximity" typically means adjacent / >contiguous properties or potentially so (by an interveneing property >joining). While it may involve some changes, renovations, additions to >the physical facilities, these are likely to be incremental and most >structures are used basically unchanged. > Quite right, and, again, I apologize. Thanks to others for their ideas, as well. I especially like the idea of hanging out at a coffee house at a give time. I think I know just the place. best, Paul Kilduff _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.