Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities.

[Flowers (flowers2]

Hi,
Here is an article from the New York Times, written in 2006, at the top of 
the "bubble." It shows how emotional the subject of affordability vs. 
investment can be:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/nyregion/10resale.html?ex=1299646800&en=35cd65aad927118e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Ed Flowers
Yulupa Cohousing
Santa Rosa, CA
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Faust" <wjfaust [at] gmail.com>
To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Urban Affordable Cooperative Cohousing Communities.


> Actually, the question of whether housing should be regarded as an
> investment or as a shelter with enduring community commitment appeared on
> this list more than a year ago. It was before the housing bubble was 
> visibly
> collapsing. That discussion didn't gain much traction since most made the
> assumption that houses that didn't appreciate substantially were somehow
> defective. That made it somewhat of a moot point. The question, however,
> wasn't whether houses should appreciate but rather how they should be
> regarded -- as investments or as enduring commitments. Maybe now, that
> question takes on new meaning.
>
> The house-as-investment view seems at odds with an underlying motivation 
> for
> cohousing: the restoration of community in our lives. I guess if one 
> bought
> into a community with the idea of recovering that investment through a
> reverse mortgage, then both commitment and investment are aligned. But is 
> it
> likely that someone viewing it as an investment would not upgrade to an 
> even
> more productive investment if the opportunity presented itself?
>
> I don't think the question is an academic one. It probably has an impact 
> on
> what you build and how you build it. I don't think building for investment
> or marketability -- a key for developer-financed projects -- would produce
> the same physical structures as a community-financed project. A developer
> will have to build for a reasonably large segment of the market and that 
> is
> understandable. She can't go broke satisfying some client group's dreams. 
> On
> the other hand, in community-financed projects, the community might take
> more risks in the use of alternative solutions that haven't been viewed as
> mainstream (e.g., local energy production, water conservation, native
> landscaping, small environmental footprint or affordability).
>
> So if you build for investment, you will more than likely steer closer to
> conventional solutions. After all, the performance of that investment will
> depend on how large that market is when you are ready to recover your 
> gains.
> If you build for an enduring commitment, you might get a better fit for 
> the
> members of the community.
>
> Another consideration might be participation in the community governance 
> and
> maintenance. Investors are likely to view that as an additional tax on the
> investment and opt out. It would be interesting to look at how some of 
> these
> aspects of cohousing vary (if at all) between developer-financed and
> community-financed communities. Is turnover in developer-financed projects
> higher? Is participation in community-financed projects higher? These are
> just guesses and the answers might surprise me.
>
> John
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/