Cohousing-L Mailing List: Defining Cohousing

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

OWNERSHIP: I think the ownership criterion began because cohousing was  
about designing space to support community. In order to do that in the  
'80s and 90's, you really had to own. And ownership is generally  
believed to be predictive of greater stability. While this may be true  
in rural and suburban areas, I don't think it necessarily is in  
cities. Current figures on this would be interesting to see.

COMMONSPACES: New rental apartments and condominiums since the late  
1990s most often include common spaces -- a central sitting area and  
laundry facilities on each floor -- plus exercise room and dining room  
on the first floor and outdoor seating areas. Plus pools and tennis  
courts in some areas.

These facilities are proportionately smaller than in cohousing and  
often control is delegated by the Board to management rather than  
residents, but they not impossible to build a community around. A  
construction engineer who worked with us on our reserve study said  
most condos would have to have 400 units to support the amount of  
common space we are supporting.

CHANGING DEFINITIONS: It would be interesting to have community  
members discuss what their definition of cohousing was when they moved  
in and 5 years after move-in.

I can't remember when our full community has gotten together as one  
group. We did when we first moved in but now, after 8 years, it would  
not be expected unless there was a community disaster involving a  
building falling down. Even then it would be the adults, not the kids.

A recent memorial service for a member was attended by a bit more than  
half of the adult residents. We would all no longer fit in our dining  
room anyway. 87 people take up a lot of space.

The existence of the common spaces does allow members to come together  
easily and on an equal footing. If an event is held in the common  
house, I feel more comfortable going, staying only as long as I like,  
and moving the furniture if I am uncomfortable.  I don't feel at a  
disadvantage because the host doesn't like me.

In a private home, I may not like to be around the cat, to sit on  
pillows on the floor, to visit that person particular person that  
particular day, or to leave when I like. The event becomes more  
"polite" in a different way than in the common house.

I would say that our community is less of an intentional community  
than I expected. The internal community email list, for example, is  
considered by many to be a "public" list. This dumbfounds me. I don't  
understand it at all.

I understand much more why condos have strong Boards that make the  
decisions about money, repairs, and enforcement of Bylaws and  
Community Rules. Our commonhouse may never get painted -- we have very  
different values about when a wall needs painted. And no one wants to  
be an enforcer. It may take a lawsuit to get some things done that a  
"normal" condo would do take care of with a letter and then the threat  
of a fine.

I no longer think that we are more of a community because we are more  
humane or less autocratic. I understand more that some perfectly nice  
people have absolutely NO interest in any discussion related to  
governance or teams or the way budget decisions reflect personal  
values. I now believe that we would be a stronger community with a  
highly delegated decision making structure based on consensus.

But even then, it is still a great place to live and I can't imagine  
moving, unless to another cohousing community.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines in Washington DC
Where all roads lead to Casablanca