Re: Separating the Common House (was construction sequence) | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Sharon Villines (sharon![]() |
|
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:15:00 -0600 (MDT) |
> The distinct > disadvantages might be that 1) Construction costs would probably be > increased by not doing it all at once Is there any formula for weighing increased construction costs against interest rates? The construction costs may be increased but you would also have the building which helps with the management of the rest of the construction. And in having the common house functioning, you spread out the little hassles of dealing with the ills of new construction. Having one building that actually works (all the bugs out) can be a huge relief. And if you build in temporary living quarters, they will be used, greatly defraying the costs of running the building. At least half our people were living in temporary housing by the time we were ready for move-in. Sharon. _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
- Re: Common House Construction Sequencing, (continued)
-
Re: Common House Construction Sequencing Fred H Olson, October 17 2001
- Re: Common House Construction Sequencing Elizabeth Stevenson, October 17 2001
-
RE: Common House Construction Sequencing Maggie, October 18 2001
- Separating the Common House (was construction sequence) Robert P. Arjet, October 18 2001
- Re: Separating the Common House (was construction sequence) Sharon Villines, October 18 2001
-
Re: Common House Construction Sequencing Fred H Olson, October 17 2001
-
Request: Operating Agreements Robert P. Arjet, October 19 2001
- Re: Request: Operating Agreements Margaret Weatherly, October 20 2001
- RE: Request: Operating Agreements Rowenahc, October 23 2001
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.