Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Senior cohousing

[Diane (dianeclaire]

Well I'm for both kinds and I am especially interested in the accommodations
that multigenerational cohousing communities are making  as its middle-aged
members become seniors.

However, I would like to say something about those words about Social
Security -- it will not go broke unless we join those who want it to
belly-up by assuming it must go broke.  A few tweeks and it will last
through the baby boomers and beyond.  the tweeks? 1) turn it from a
regressive to a progressive tax -- at the moment the richer you are the
smaller is the perventage of your income that you pay into it.  2) raise the
retirement age slightly; 3) stop dipping into the fund to pay for deficits
in other parts of the budget.

Thanks,
Diane

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Beverly Jones Redekop <
beverly.jones.redekop [at] gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Yarrow Ecovillage is developing its multigenerational cohousing first, but
> we also plan to have seniors cohousing onsite.  We figure that some seniors
> enjoy the liveliness and vitality of children and other seniors would
> prefer
> to avoid the need for conversations about how children need to remember to
> pick up scattered outside toys.  Many of the moms in the multigenerational
> have plans to sneak over to seniors cohousing for lovely quiet events with
> candles and tablecloths!
>
> I agree that we could use Sharon's list as a reminder of how to keep
> multigenerational attractive for people of all ages, but even if we
> "fix"all
> of those items, there might still be people who want to feel free to ....I
> don't know, grow poisonous flowers in their window boxes or leave delicate
> china figurines on a table outside their front door.  It might be nice to
> have a common house bathroom that would never have water splashed about or
> grimy marks on the handtowel.  I would not take the need for seniors
> cohousing as evidence of failed multigenerational cohousing.
>
> I really like Sharon's list, however, and will share it with my neighbours
> and neighbours-in-waiting.
>
> Thanks,
> Beverly
>
> www.yarrowecovillage.ca (1 hour east of Vancouver, BC)
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>          Beverly Jones Redekop
>
>    beverly.jones.redekop [at] gmail.com
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Laura Fitch <lfitch [at] krausfitch.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I disagree with the notion that the senior cohousing movement detracts
> from
> > multi-generational cohousing.
> >
> > I actually am very excited about senior cohousing, and determined to help
> > make it happen.  I look at the baby boomer tsunami that is about to hit
> > retirement age - and I conclude that my generation is in BIG trouble if
> we
> > do not figure out how to better house ourselves in our later years.
>  There
> > will not be enough multi-generational cohousing to do it.  Social
> Security
> > may be broke.  I sincerely believe we will need to explore MANY solutions
> > and this is one solution that should be available for whoever wants it.
> >
> > I am especially excited about the two types going in side by side as in
> the
> > case of Silver Sage and Wild Sage communities in Boulder!
> >
> > Laura Fitch, AIA, LEED AP
> > Kraus-Fitch Architects, Inc.
> > 110 Pulpit Hill Rd.
> > Amherst, MA  01002
> > 413-549-5799
> >
> > lfitch [at] krausfitch.com
> > www.krausfitch.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sharon Villines [mailto:sharon [at] sharonvillines.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 8:41 AM
> > To: Cohousing-L
> > Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Any family-based 55+ cohousing in existence?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12 Dec 2010, at 11:56 PM, balaji [at] ouraynet.com wrote:
> >
> > > movement.  Why?  Because it takes seniors out of the loop, and
> constrains
> > > the development of true (i.e., multigenerational) communities.
> >
> > Well, just the opening I needed to engage this subject. I also believe
> this
> > is not a good trend for cohousing because it is the seniors who do a
> vital
> > if not largest share of work in the community. Our community would
> collapse
> > without them.
> >
> > Our most dependable people are over 60. They have more flexible time and
> > have a greater understanding of "larger than my household"
> > responsibilities.
> > They are less overwhelmed by their own lives and have out-grown the
> > expectation that someone else will do it. Many young people are parented
> to
> > believe that others (parents, teachers, counselors, etc.) are out there
> and
> > will take care of things.
> >
> > Of our residents who are over 60 there is not one who is a slacker. Not
> all
> > are hale and hearty but they are all dependable to the best of their
> > ability. None use their infirmities as an excuse for not stepping in when
> > something needs to be done, and those under 50 do when they have a cold.
> > Most don't need to be asked to pitch in. Even those who are 85+ have
> > ongoing
> > leadership and task responsibilities. If it is within their physical
> > ability, they are responsible. This far from true of the under 50 crowd.
> >
> > If people under 50 don't want to stop the drift to senior cohousing, they
> > need to look at the reasons older people want their own spaces. I haven't
> > made a study of this but on my list and on the lists of those I've talked
> > with are:
> >
> > 1. An expectation of adult behavior in some areas of the commonhouse
> _and_
> > the grounds all the time and at some time in most areas of the CH. This
> > requires a concept of the CH has something other than a rumpus room for
> > children or an unsupervised student dining hall.
> >
> > 2. Some meals where children are not present so adults can speak not just
> > to
> > be heard but to have uninterrupted conversations and make jokes that
> > someone
> > else may not want their children to hear. And continue them past school
> day
> > bedtimes.
> >
> > 3. An understanding that on a regular basis there will be events for
> which
> > parents have to make their own arrangements for their own children. The
> > people over 50 have either raised their children or chosen not to raise
> > them
> > and most probably did not join the community for the sole purpose of
> > assuming responsibility for more. Emergency back up and support for
> > childcare at meetings and workdays is the expected limit on childcare.
> Some
> > will do much more but should not be expected to nor repeatedly asked.
> >
> > 4. Understand the difference between child-friendly and child-centered.
> > Child-centered is not multigenerational.
> >
> > 5. Parents must remind themselves that their children are not holy
> causes.
> > No crusades.
> >
> > Cohousing is wonderful but multi-generational takes focus on the needs of
> > all the generations, not just the children and their parents.
> >
> > It would be interesting to have some discussions of how this mult-focus
> > could be assured. How would you structure the budget and the
> prioritization
> > of activities to ensure that it was being done?
> >
> > Sharon
> > ----
> > Sharon Villines
> > Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
> > http://www.takomavillage.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>


-- 
Diane Margolis
175 Richdale Av.
Cambridge, MA 02140
617 354 1349