Re: Encouraging Multigenerational Community | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Art Gorski (agorski![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:17:10 -0700 (MST) |
On a visit to another cohousing community, we were told that it was benificial to have restricted membership to one third families, one third couples and one third singles. There is some interest in our group to this idea but we need more information. I would like to know what experience other groups have had with or without this type of arrangement. Without this restriction, what type of membership should we expect?
I think that depends on your town demographics. At Manzanita Village cohousing, those that have moved in so far are primarily, although not exclusively, retired. That's because of several factors: the high cost of construction, the lack of jobs in Prescott, and the fact that 39% of the local population is retirees.
We are actively working on providing incentives to families with children and those with limited income, but it's tough to overcome the reality in our area.
If you set artificial restrictions, you may have difficulty finding enough members in every category you create.
Art Gorski <http://is.rice.edu/~agorski/> 90% Houston, Texas and 10% Prescott, Arizona _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L
-
Encouraging Multigenerational Community curcio, January 27 2003
- Re: Encouraging Multigenerational Community Kevin Wolf, January 27 2003
- Re: Encouraging Multigenerational Community Art Gorski, January 27 2003
- Re: Encouraging Multigenerational Community Diane Simpson, January 27 2003
- RE: Encouraging Multigenerational Community: selective recruiting Rob Sandelin, January 27 2003
-
Re: Encouraging Multigenerational Community Raines Cohen, January 27 2003
- Fair Housing Law: was: [C-L]_Encouraging Multigenerational Community Jeff Coffin, January 27 2003
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.