Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Defining Cohousing

[balaji (balaji]

In anthropology we often speak of societies as groups that require
periodic "revitalization" in order to maintain solidarity.  Over time, as
practices become "routinized," it is harder and harder to preserve the the
group's early espirit de corps.  Sometimes a group invents (or adopts)
rituals that keep up the necessary degree of enthusiasm.  Common house
meals are an obvious example  - a necessary ingredient, in my observation,
but not a sufficient one.  Other times a group will rely on a charismatic
figure, or group of people, to perform this function.  I suspect the
founding generation often serves in this role; once they're gone, however,
the remaining folks can find it difficult to maintain their social
solidarity.  They become as Sharon describes her own community, running
largely on the fumes of memory.

Forming groups often depend on people who are fanatical enough to overlook
the obvious risks in forming a pecular residential society against great
odds.  Such people are often attracted precisely because they enjoy taking
risks their conventional counterparts could never dream of.  Once the
group has established itself, however, it will tend to draw more on the
highly organized (and, in a strict sense, more mundane) individuals who
can keep the gears oiled and the tires enflated.  The problem is that
organizers,as essential as they are, rarely generate the spark or fire
necessary for the group to maintain its internal cohesion.

I would argue a cohousing group still needs the risk-taking fanatacism of
its founders, since they will continue to play an important role in
"revitalization."

How, then, to balance the two, and make sure both are understood as
essential within a community?

Charles W. Nuckolls
Utah Valley Commons
www.utahvalleycommons.com


P.S.  The classic studies of "revitalization," by the way, was done by
Anthony F.C. Wallace and Peter Worsley.

>
> 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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>
>