Epic Huggles

11/5 Reflection

I enjoyed visiting Shadow Lake Village.  I guess it helped giving me a better idea of what a cohousing community looks like. I am glad I was able to go and sort of get a better perception of the whole thing instead of being skeptical but not open minded enough to go check it out. I think I am still going to stick with my original opinion about it. They stretched the statement that it is not a commune. But the only thing I saw that was different from a commune in the fact that each family has ownership over their own house. Other than that, I didn't see any difference. And I also think that eventhough they claim that there is diversity but there really is not. They are mostly from white middle class people. I don't think a cohousing community would be something that I will ever pursue. I might not have a sense of community within my neighborhood. But I put enough effort into relationships from church or work to be able to have a group of friends that I can rely on and hang out with the same way they do without having to share most of my day with them. Individualism is a rather important value to me. I can have a community without losing that value.

11/5 Reflection

Yesterday’s field trip Shadow lake Cohousing development really put things into perspective for me.  I didn’t think much of it at first until we had the tour of the development site and received a lot of useful information about cohousing from our tour guide.  I can tell that the people that live in these cohousing communities all strive for the same things in life; such as, saving money, beneficial relationships, and safety reasons.  So a cohousing community makes perfect sense for someone like that, but for people that didn’t grow up like that, like me, it just seems a little too close for comfort.  Overall I felt that the field trip was very useful for really understanding cohousing communities.

Co-housing: Community, Ecology, and a little Kool Aid

Co-housing is a new concept for me and it seems like its guiding values are in the right place. I agree that the community atmosphere, the connectedness, the ties with the ecological community, the consensus building, and closeness of the co-housing community’s inhabitants will produce positive social capital. Co-housing units seem to build healthy relationships and trust between their inhabitants, create a sense of belonging and importance during the decision making process, and provide clean, safe, and diverse habitats for all of the unit’s inhabitants. I love the concept of the Common House, growing food in local gardens, the ecological awareness, the protection of open space, and the pedestrian-oriented style of the neighborhood. I feel that too many suburban development today’s employ the exact opposite traits of the co-housing unit and this trend is degrading community action and involvement. The suburban design currently promotes, in my honest opinion, an individualist lifestyle in which each family unit doesn’t really show interest in the health and well-being of the overall community. Each family tends to mind their own business, water their expense landscaping, and eventually become entirely detached from important issues. Co-housing seeks to remedy this current trend of suburban isolation and sprawl in a pretty attractive manner. Also the decisions of the community are made by individuals that know the most about that community: the members. This seems like a very logical way to solve local issues and is a great idea.

In the long run I really hope this idea of co-housing becomes an increasingly attractive alternative to the normal developments taking place today. However, I see a few pitfalls/concerns that could potentially make this transition towards co-housing difficult. The major issue I have with co-housing is the selection process. The second step of the co-housing agenda involves the selection of community members. Couldn’t this lead to I don’t know…lawsuits? The selection process doesn’t seem to be based on much and I’m not even sure if a selection process is even fair. I mean how do you tell a family applying to live in your community, “No Thanks.  You’re not what we’re looking for right now.”? Isn’t that a little elitist? Also my “Where is the red Kool-Aid, because the aliens are behind the comet” radar is slightly beeping here. Call me paranoid or whatever. Maybe I do not quite understand the governmental structures of these co-housing units. Just something seems a little off. Also consensus based decision making seems to be a great idea on paper, but unless you practice it extensively and work out every kink it doesn’t work as well as you think. The EC is consensus based, however if our three most vocal members want something to happen it does. Yes they look around to make sure other EC members are in agreement, but they never are. I feel as if a few more vocal, visible members of the community are going to have a lot more influence because new, outspoken members won’t want to disagree with them and get kicked out. Also if you disagree with this hidden power you can find yourself being ostracized from the community; even if it doesn’t occur intentionally. Smart growth…yes. Cluster development…yes. Co-housing…? I honestly don’t know what to think. Hopefully things can be cleared up for me tonight.

Discussion Q- Nov 5.

I have chosen to look at Takoma village in Washington dc. I thought this was particularly interesting since it's in an urban area and I picture these sort of things only occurring in rural areas for some reason... It was formed in 1998, and completed in 2001. The benefits of self managed communities are really subjective I think. I'm sure some people would love to live in a place that you always see your neighbors whenever you walk outside, and have weekly meals with them. But I am willing to bet there are quite a few people who would feel completely smothered having their neighbors in their business all the time.

These sort of communities definitely do offer some benefits. You can let your kids play outside and there's always somebody watching over them. Living in one of these communities is a great opportunity for teamwork and building strong friendships etc.

In Takoma, they make decions off a consensus basis. Even if people know eachother very well, I imagine its incredibly hard to get much done if all decions are consensus based, because sometimes, people just have fundamentally different beliefs that won't be changed.I think this is one limitaiton.This leads to another possible limitation which is homogeneyity among residents, which I don't think is a great idea. I mean, imagine growing up in a little village filled with people just like you, who think the same as you etc? I don't imagine it leads to much appreciation of diversity... I don't know. I've never lived in anything like this, so clearly I don't really know.

11/05 discussion

I looked at the Duwamish Cohousing Community in West Seattle. They have  25 households on 2.7 acres of land. There is no joining fee but there is a monthly fee determined by the size of the home. On their website, they claim to share these values: Community, Diversity, Land/Environment, decisions making, group activities, and the Large Neighborhood. They share meals 2-5 times a week. Community meeting is once a week. And everyone is required to attend a group meal once a week. This community has been completed since 2001. It has been 7 years, but just from the look of their website, I don't think there has been much growth happening. I really don't see much potential for Duwamish Cohousing.

I am a little skeptical about this idea. It seems a little too socialistic to me. I think the idea sounds very idealistic. I guess we all agree here that communism doesn't work. Yet, I don't see much difference between these kind of communities and communism. Sharing is a great idea, but I don't know if I can handle such close proximity with my neighbors. I am probably too brainwashed by the American ways of life, which means keep to yourself, say hi to your neighbors once a month, or even live somewhere for years and not know your neighbors at all. I think the idea of living together sounds very good. But I really don't think it will work. It's hard enough to live at home with your parents after you've left for college. I can't imagine the kind of drama that would occur in close communities of 30+ adults. I am not going to be hesitate to say that Americans are not ready for this.

CoHousing Discussion Question

Takoma Village, Washington D.C.

The Takoma Village community makes consensus decisions.  Their goal is "100% consent, not necessarily 100% agreement".  I think that kind of distinction could be very important for future self-managed communities.  It's often hard for people to consent to decisions that they don't agree with; the community manages it by asking people to commit to considering the good of the community over their own wishes. 

The relationships between community members are both an asset and a liability in decision making.  People can be more willing to listen to and consider other people's opinions/desires when they care about the other people; at the same time, it is harder to manage conflict when people are unwilling to be straightforward because of worrying about others' feelings.  This community advocates both searching for consensus based on reason and separating relationships from the decision making process.  I think this actually could be a liability.  Most people have a hard time thinking rationally rather than emotionally, especially if they're passionate about the issue at hand. 

This sort of arrangement seems to me to have a lot of potential.  It helps every member's voice to be heard and trains participants in collective decision-making and conflict resolution.  It also seems to be conducive to forward-thinking solutions to economic and environmental problems.  There is a danger, though, in that cohousing seems to be only for the elite. 

Nov. 5 Discussion

Cohousing is a very unique planning method that is slowly gaining more recognition.  I chose to look at the Prairie Onion Cohousing, located in Chicago, IL.  This cohousing group was formed in 2004, but are still in the planning phase.  Their vision for cohousing includes affordability, green building, accessibility to a variety of people (ie disabled, older residents), and of course, connectivity between the residents and community.  This cohousing group's future has been invested by the time and effort they have put in to organize group meetings and other events to bring the Prairie Onion community together during the planning and devlopment phases.  Also, the community is building within the city, to take advantage of the city's public transit system.  Although they are still forming, the group has used the internet as their social network for meeting updates and general information.  The communtiy's future potential seems to be fairly strong, backed by their green building and accessibility to the city's public infrastructure; it appears to have a good blend between the characteristics of a cohousing community and the city. 

The limitations that I foresee for this community, like all cohousing communities, is that they do not allow visitors, unless they have previously contacted someone within the community and schelduled a set time to come.  At first glance, I assumed cohousing communities were more like public neighborhoods, where you can drive through the area and look at the houses, etc.  I feel like eliminating this factor does not allow the general public to fully understand the community.  Having a close-knit community is great; it ups the level of trust and security, but can also close the community to expansion.

Cohousing communities is an interesting concept that has alot of beneficial and unique opportunities.  However, the sense of an exclusionary factor can harm the dynamics of the community, and can sometimes create more problems. 

Discussion for Nov 5th

voting inspiration -You can vote however you like

The co housing community I researched was the ElderSpirit Community in Abingdon, VA (I was just in Abingdon this past weekend). It was established in 2002 and is a community for men and women 55+ years old. It is a community of 40 members who pay monthly dues for maintenance and who vote for the president of the community and a small executive committee.  Members share about 1-3 meals a month and grow only a small portion of their food. Religious practices, finances and diets are all individual, but smoking is prohibited.

The main future potential of the ElderSpirit Community is support. As we know, as people age they eventually become less and less self sufficient. Health problems often inhibit elderly people from being able to accomplish everyday tasks and also getting out of their home for errands. But their needs do not change. Many older individuals rely on family for housing and financial and social support. A cohousing community allows for elderly people to support each others needs, as some people may not have family or may not feel comfortable relying on them. A benefit specific to the ElderSpirit Community is spiritual support. There is not a shared religion (everyone is free to practice their own), but spirituality, prayer and meditation is encouraged to find one's "spiritual path" and this is supported by their Spirit Center.

A potential drawback of the ElderSpirit Community is that different spiritual paths often are synonymous with differing woldviews. In addition, actively seeking a spiritual path will most likely lead to stronger differing worldviews. This may become a problem when making communal decisions on rules and regulations of the cohousing community. Not that most cohousing communities have only one religious/spiritual view, but they may not have as many and the worldviews may not be as extreme as devotion may not be as strong. Honestly, there is probably only a slight chance of this happening, but I had a really hard time thinking of any other possible drawbacks. From previous knowledge and also exploring the website, cohousing seems like a great idea with very few drawbacks (especially for older adults).

11/5 Discussion question

I looked over the Blueberry Hill Cohousing Community in Vienna, Virginia.  It was completed in 2001 and has 7 acres.  This cohousing community consists of 19 houses near a vegetable farm where they receive food.  The community is self developed and they own a common house where they eat a couple times a week, throw parties, and use the outdoor spaces.  They have a very diverse membership including origin, religion, profession, age class, and family size.  This cohousing community strives to maintain relationships with all community members.  They achieve this by community projects and meeting as a whole once a month.  Their decision making is by consensus with a leadership group but this group varies.   Some of the future potential for this community is the ability to have relationships with each individual family within this community, so many more families to rely on for help and vice versa.  Some of the limitations could be not enough money to expand the community or people getting tired of the same activities every week or disliking some of the families and they end up leaving the community until the cohousing community dwindles down to only a few families.  The potentials activated by this type of environment is people relying on other people for everything; therefore, the potential danger here is these people not being able to function in society by themselves.  Somebody who relies on somebody for everything and can’t do anything for themselves has problems. 

11/5 Discussion Post

I looked at Hearthstone Cohousing in Denver, Colorado.  This community was completed in 2002 and contains 33 townhomes and a diverse and multi-generational membership (20-80s).  They govern themselves by consensus, and don't have a specific leader, only a steering committee that helps the community move forward. They have a community garden, eat together twice a week, and try to provide food for everyone's preferences.

Based on this community some of the potential for the future of self-managed communities, are the ability to provide what they need for themselves, create a community that suits their needs more than the generic "community" that city governments may create, helps promote neighbor/community unity.  Some of the likely limitations are not being able to have enough money to create things that they want (for example, a school) because the city government may not accept it, possible competition between neighbors about what's "best" for the community, etc.

The set up of the neighborhood activates the potentials of creating more unity within a neighborhood and reclaiming the "traditional know your neighbors" and establishing a time to come together to socialize, yet can maintain professional relations. It also allows for other communal activities (besides dinner), such as a garden, where families can work together to grow food, flowers, etc for the whole community.  Some dangers/limitations that may occur are again, potential "power struggle" in order to create the best community, more work by a few families than others can cause tension, some other groups may argue that they are just another HOA and that they're not any different besides just eating together, and there may be issues between what the community wants and what the city government wants to do in the area (new construction, etc).

November 5th Disussion Questions

I have read the various sections of the cohousing.org website and looked at a couple co-housing developments in the United States and have come to understand and appreciate their purpose on a much greater level.  From my impression, the most emphasis in put on the collective establishment and management of these types of communities.  Often times, those interested in living in a co-housing community ban together to build it rather than just moving into an already developed community.  Once completed, it is the duty of all members to manage their community and its activities through the Homeowners Association.  The potential that lies within the Homeowners Association is great because it is a representation of all community members that, with few exceptions, share the broad goal of living together through a mutual respect and sense of caring for your neighbors. They do not have the same problems that typically plague a community and have been proven successful by the growing popularity of co-housing communities throughout the world.  I think we will continue to see growth in these styles of communities, especially within America, as people become more conscious of community and the lack thereof in many suburban developments, realize their dependence on the automobile, and strive to live in more environmentally friendly ways.  Co-housing developments address each of these issues, and more, as people of all ages, ethnicities, and religions are welcomed and encouraged to actively live together with their neighbors in hopes of providing such things as a wholesome environment for children, efficient use of natural resources, ample opportunity for intellectual and skill development and a simplified lifestyle.

The main limitation I see for co-housing developments is the slow and tedious development process that often takes years to fully complete.  Because they are not built for profit, but rather from a group of future residents, the planning, construction and completion of these projects is drawn out to ensure everyone is satisfied and all relevant options are considered.  There are several agencies and groups that are available to assist people in the planning and development of a co-housing neighborhood, which certainly helps, but perhaps not enough if it takes a minimum of two to three years on average from the formation of the idea to when it becomes a reality.  I also think that the aim of many co-housing developments seem a bit too idyllic and possibly a little to unrealistic for the everyday American family to relate to.  Although I think we can all agree an increased sense of community and interaction with neighbors is desirable for many, the ambitious aim and goals set up by many of these communities may turn some people off. Overall though, I do like the idea of co-housing neighborhoods and believe they have great potential for fostering a strong sense of community for all residents, which produces many other positive externalities.  I look forward to seeing and hearing about Shadowlake.

Class Reflection - Oct. 29

I really enjoyed last Wednesday's class and participating in the Design Charette activity.  I personally felt that a community-driven design charette uncovered a variety of issues and viewpoints from multiple stakeholders, each with vested interests in the overall well-being on the communal area.  I also felt that this style of design charette brought all different types of people, from different classes and different backgrounds together to try to achieve a common goal.  For example, our group had three single mothers and their interests where very different from that of a single homeowner or a convenience store owner.  But I think that the face to face interaction in a charette such as this would be key to the overall understanding of the different viewpoints.   

Reflection for Charrette Class

The design charrette from last class really was a fun and educational insight to alternative ways to engage citizen action in urban design. However, when I found out that almost everyone in our focus group was from Greenfield Apartments I was a little worried. As the police officer I had spent also of time in Greenfield, and probably would have a pretty negative opinion towards the people living there. However, having the opportunity to talk to the residents really opened up my character's eyes about why things were so bad in Greenfield. These people were everyday citizens just like my character. Kids to look after, jobs to make, and homes to protect. I realized at this point that the charrette is an amazing chance to gather input from so many different points of view. It allowed my character to see past his opinions on the situation, and help him develop some alternatives that he hadn't previously thought of. Thats why it was a major bummer that in real life the community centers, baseball fields, and schools didn't happen. Looking at the designs each group made, I was really hoping the same thing had happened in reality. Sadly, I'm assuming not many people from Greenfield made it to any public meetings discussing the fate of that piece of land, and even if they had their voices might have not been heard. I really hope alternatives ways to urban planning begin to take hold, and I believe that by being in this class we'll be able to bring a fresh outlook to our jobs in the future.

Reflection on Oct 29 Class

Class was fun!  It's kind of a miracle, I wasn't expecting that.  It was harder than I expected to figure out what my character would want from the charette.  The process was a little frustrating.  How do you get people who want different things to come to a consensus?  I think it would work better if there were a facilitator who was not a member of the group.  Just for example, when Katie was the recorder, it seemed like it was hard for her to actually input her ideas.  A few times, too, the conversation got a little heated.  An impartial third-party moderator probably would have helped us keep the conversation constructive. 
I wonder at how the maps that we drew would have been used in a real situation.  How would a professional planner use that information to inform their decision?  I can't really see how it would be helpful. 
Overall, though, the experience was really interesting.  I'd like to participate in a real-life charette someday and see how accurate our imitation was. 

Oct. 29 Reflection

I really enjoyed class on Wednesday.  The charette process was a lot of fun, providing everyone with the opportunity to role play and actively participate.  Our charette was overwhelmed with Greenfield Apartment residents, which definitely had an impact on our goals/strategies and implementation process.  It was really entertaining to have everyone get into their roles; it made the charette more realistic.

However, it was hard for the group to collectively put aside our planning knowledge when it came to the implementation process.  We were all in agreement that we wanted the area to represent mixed-use development with a good public transit infrastructure and to be pedestrian friendly.  The charette process was a great learning tool and opportunity for many of us to see it can positively impact a community.  I was a little disappointed seeing the actual blueprint, which consisted of only single family homes.  In today's planning process, I hope that the planning will continue to emphasize the incorporation of active community participation into planning and development, for the best opportunity.

Reflection 10/29

This week in class we did a charette decide how to develop a land acquisition by the city of Lynchburg. It was a pretty good process. It was fun how everybody assumed a character & whatnot. Our group wasn’t evenly represented though, we had quite a few people from the Greenfield development, only one from a gated community nearby, and only one from the boys and girls club etc… I wonder if our plan might have taken a different shape if we had a more diverse population present.  Well, maybe not, since the other two plans were pretty similar to ours and they had a different representation.

It’s pretty sad that not much ended up happening with the real plot of land. I think the charette made it clear that there is a lot of potential, so hopefully a beneficial development will materialize on the land eventually….

10/29 Reflection

The use of the charrette in Wednesday's class, in my opinion, was a good exercise.  The best part though, was having us "be" someone else. I don't think it would have been as productive/fun if we all had to do it as our own person. Being someone else made us have to think about "what would this person want" etc.  Not necessary "what do I think as a planner this should be?".  We had a bit of fun with it, but at the same time, were able to think of a great possible solution, trying to incorporate what everyone in the "community" wanted.  I do agree with John though, that I think people come into these meetings with a set agenda of what they want done, and it is quite hard to give up what you want, and for the moderator/planner to try and gather all these ideas (possibly conflicting) and create a development that is to everyone's liking.  I guess the hope is that people will actually listen to what others are saying, and walk out with a better appreciation, if not a new perspective, of what others think.