Cohousing-L Mailing List: cohousing vs. HOAs: size limits on governance & management

[Tree Bressen (tree]

Hi,

In the bout of recent messages, i'm not sure anyone ever actually answered 
Pete's questions.

> --
> Pete Holsberg
> Columbus, NJ
> --

> At what size does a community meeting become unweildy? [And from a later 
> message:] How large can a coho becone before the "town meeting" form of 
> "government gets unwieldy?

If i recall correctly, Chris Scott-Hanson's book recommends an upper limit 
for cohousing of 36 households.  Then again, Eastern Village in Maryland 
just built a place with 56.  In my observation cohousing averages 1.5 
adults per household, so that would be over 80 adults.  The Bruderhof 
historically split off when their communities reach 150, and if you read 
Malcolm Gladwell's "Tipping Point" he says that 150 is an upper limit for 
humyn communities to stay connected.

In my mind this links to the statement from Christopher Alexander, et al.'s 
"Pattern Language" that once you go above a dozen people, you can't easily 
see the full texture of everyone's facial expression nor hear everyone's 
voice in casual, unprojected speech.  (See Pattern #151, "Small Meeting 
Rooms," for those who are into this kind of thing.)  I wonder if it's 
coincidence that 12 groups of 12 equals 144, or just under the 150-person 
boundary?

OK, i couldn't resist those rambles.  But i think the basic principle 
addressing your question is that as the group grows larger, the 
participation in governance is naturally going to shift more toward 
representative rather than direct democracy.  Activists at large street 
protests work in affinity groups which send reps to a spokescouncil, and 
the Polish parliament operated by consensus in the same way until 
1763.  This seems like a basic principle that societies discover over and 
over again.  Sociocracy is a type of consensus methodology that makes this 
organizational structure particularly explicit.  Svanholm Community in 
Denmark uses consensus decision-making with 65 adult members, and my friend 
who visited there said that most of the real decision-making happens at the 
committee level.  However, Quakers and Bioregional Congresses use consensus 
in much larger groups--i've heard reports of 500 people in the 
decision-making group at Bioregional events in years gone by--so i think 
that can work if the members are sufficiently disciplined.

Which brings me to another difference between cohousing and typical condos: 
consensus governance is a different dynamic than majority voting.

> Are you suggesting that cohousing residents manage their own property? As 
> volunteers? How big a community can an amateur property manager manage? 
> (Not suggesting that property management is brain surgery!)

There are intentional communities of hundreds of members that manage their 
properties themselves.  Mostly groups with some shared religious basis, but 
that doesn't keep them from having to deal with maintenance, upkeep, 
replacement reserves, etc.

> We have similar facilities. A clubhouse with indoor and outdoor pools, two 
> card rooms, a "fitness center", a pool room, a TV/library, a large 
> dining/meeting hall and a kitchen. Puttin ggree, tennis courts, bocce courts.

I notice that these facilities seem to address recreational needs, but 
perhaps not other life needs?  For instance, cohousing facilities typically 
include kid space (where the younger residents play while the grown-ups are 
finishing "boring" dinner table conversations), guest rooms, laundry rooms, 
sometimes a workshop space, and so on.

A huge difference between cohousing and regular condos is the shared 
meals.  Most cohousing groups eat dinner together 2-5x/week.  Not everyone 
attends, but the meals are there and many people do come.  This builds in a 
layer of relationship and community that is a big jump up from typical 
American neighborly relations.

> Here's what gets me. Suppose X, who has lived in a coho for N years 
> decides to sell his house to me. I haven't participated in the design. 
> Will I experience the coho differently from the original owners?

Now this is a fascinating question, one that i've wondered about as 
well.  Perhaps it's too early in the history of the movement for us to 
know--i think the real test will come not when a few units have turned over 
since the original owners moved in, but when the entire community has 
turned over and no one is left who was part of the development/building 
stage.  Few intentional communities are able to maintain themselves past 
one generation, and most communities get "watered down" over the years, 
becoming more assimilated and less radical.  However, i'd be interested to 
hear cohousing residents speculate on this.  Particularly with an eye 
toward what present-day inhabitants can do to ensure that the community 
stays vibrant and involved over the long haul.  Anyone care to comment?

Cheers,

--Tree



-----------------------------------------------

Tree Bressen
1680 Walnut St.
Eugene, OR 97403
(541) 484-1156
tree [at] ic.org
http://www.treegroup.info