Community Centered Development

[Architechnid 186]

Hello all. This was the best place I could find to post this. Let me know if it needs to go someplace else.

 

I have started a company that, for the moment, flips houses like you see on American TV. The ultimate goal for this company, however is to develop new master planned communities on the scale of a village or town using principles you would find at Google's new campus, a university campus, or a co-housing group. The intention is to have the money raised and the land chosen and purchased to begin the first development by 2023, likely somewhere here in Texas.

 

The concept came to me because my family, consisting of my wife, my toddler, and myself, found ourselves isolated from family, by a minimum of 520 miles. Because of this, we found it difficult to do everything that we wanted as well as we wanted in the time we had. Between her job, my job, keeping up with a house, and a toddler, there is little time for social life, alone time, or just making a healthy dinner for ourselves. I know that this is not a problem regulated to this city, state, or even continent.

 

I came upon the concept of co-housing, and found it to be a beautifully effective potential solution to this lack of support. Add in my interest in becoming a designer of master planned developments, and I felt I really had something to add to the way development occurred, at least hear in Texas and much of the U.S. Ambitious to be sure, and scary as the leap included my quitting my perfectly wonderful job interning for an architect, destined to one day carry the title myself no longer.

 

Co-Housing is where several people, perhaps as many as a few dozen, live in a sort of co-op where the duties of everyday life are shared, and therefore synergistically lightened.  The concept, when explained to the type of person I typically encounter in West Texas, can conjure up negative connotations such as a cult or a hippie commune. While those can be a type of co-housing, I'd argue that it's analogous to how a square is a type of rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. I for one wouldn't want to live in either of those.

 

My idea is to create a development that revolves around about 6 of these types of co-houses, each with 20 people or less, and each with a common identity / worldview of the inhabitants. It could be that one was Christian, the next areligious, but focused on environmental sustainability, the third based on a common world view on how to raise children, and so on. While each Co-house could have a different identity from the next, there would need to be common values within the town regarding inclusiveness, an abundance mentality, and a focus on interdependence over independence, let alone dependence.  Each family or individual could have their own plot of land and dwelling, but their would be a common building that housed places for cooking, eating, playing / relaxing, and if appropriate for the co-house, a chapel or temple for worship. These 6 or so co-house communities would all surround the town center, which would be the hub for the entire town (as the name makes obvious, lol).

 

The town would also have more traditional type housing, though still different from the norm in Texas in that the entire town would revolve around pedestrian / cycling centered transportation. This would be another paradigm shift, specifically here in Texas. The idea would be that, if you so chose, you could literally eat, sleep, work, play, and interact without having to get into a personal car, either by proximity to the amenity, or a high quality public transport that would actually be preferable by even the wealthiest of residents.

 

If you so chose, however, you could also hop in your car, and drive on to the next town or where-ever. The government of the town would oversee things like park maintenance and public transportation, however, not actually provide those services. Instead, non-profits and companies where appropriate would run those things, and be as loosely regulated as possible.

 

The transport, in addition, should be freely available to residents, and cost effective for visitors, and therefore should rely on low infrastructure. Instead of trains, have something along the lines of Bus Rapid Transit, Personal Rapid Transit, or some other option similar to this.

 

The general shape of the development would be roughly linear, though the spline could be curved or squiggly. This might look like an I, L, S, or U. An efficient transport system that would only need two lines, one in each direction could then service the entire town.

 

One other key ingredient that I've yet to fully figure out how to implement is ensuring that a good cross-section of the region the town is in is represented within the town. Communities tend to thrive more when there is a good mix of income levels all within a single neighborhood. If low income residents can't afford to live there, the detriment would be both to that class, and the rest of the residents as well.

 

So, that's my dream. It's not written in stone or fully though out, but the whole purpose of posting here is to get an idea of how well it would be received, and get ideas on how well it could work. I can't wait to get some great feedback.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Nearest thing I can think of in this regard is a mutual condominium.  There are a few in some places I've lived.  The condo corp shareholders are the tenants and they do the maintenance work between them.  This is sometimes referred to as a co-op, but that is usually a farmers marketing outfit.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Communal living is ideal.

And as such nearly impossible in practice.

Unless everyone chooses to live together.

My only relevant experience was living in youth shelters and while at times we got along youd also get bad uns.

[Meg 368]

The nuclear family is a relatively new, and failed, experiment.  

 

"New" because it has only been in existence for the last 150-200 years.  Prior to that, most people lived in extended families with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins all together. 

 

"Failed" because many people have discovered what you have:   there are not enough adults to absorb the stresses and activities of day-to-day life.   There is a reason why 50% of all American marriage fail. 

 

A variety of solutions have been proposed.  They can be great when they work and a major hassle when they don't.

 

Co-housing is one proposed solution.   Basically it creates the village in "it takes a village".

 

Plural marriage is one that is rarely discussed.   Unfortunately, the most visible plural marriages involve non-consenting, non-adults.  This is not acceptable to most people.   Consenting adults in plural marriages usually cite the benefits you mention for co-housing.

 

I know one person who claims the answer is having three people in every marriage (mix up the genders however you'd like) but one of them would stay at home.    I'm not sure that would work.   Being a stay-at-home parent has its own set of challenges.

 

Other people claim the answer is live-in help, which used to be common.   Live-in help can handle a lot of the day-to-day routine.

 

My immigrant great-grandmother was far from rich but she had live-in help, usually other immigrants who helped with washing clothes.   Oddly, the invention of the modern washer/dryer eliminated the rational for live-in help to do the wash but added just another chose to be done.    There was more live-in help when things weren't so automated.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Actually, I've reached the stage where I need weekly (or less) housekeeping help.  I get to pay for it, and thank heavens it is somewhat subsidized by the province.  I have the choice of moving into a secondary care facility which I don't need or hiring a cleaning lady.  I've chosen the latter from an agency I trust.

 

During the war years, while my mother and I lived in our own place (Dad was overseas), we were surrounded by members of both families who all lived within walking distances.  One of my mother's sisters actually lived next to my paternal grandparents.  Small towns are like a huge extended family in many ways.  Too bad the old place grew up.  It is now a ginormous tourist trap.  I don't know anyone there any more.  This is the ultimate case of "You can't go home again."

 

In the case of large cohabiting groups, there are too many agendas for them to work very often.  The nuclear family idea is based on single income with kids and one parent stays home to raise them.  As things became outrageously expensive, many couples decided to be DINKs.  In our society now, for the middle class to keep up you have to run like the red queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass.

[Duke87 1,070]

The concept that you are not supposed to continue living with your parents because you are supposed to strike out on your own and be self-sufficient is very much a creation of the industrial revolution. It's been around in the US longer than it has been in some other countries. I have grandparents and relatives of similar age who grew up where the extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) were all neighbors, all saw each other every day, and all helped each other out with various things every day. At first they kept this with them when they came to America, but as the means of making a living was now pursuing various career paths rather than farming, there was a gradual diaspora as now within the extended family, different people's lives varied a lot more, put different demands on them, and required them to be in different places. It would be neither practical nor pleasant for the related nuclear family units to remain in such close proximity. At this point, the next generation is likely to have extended family in different time zones.

 

And here is where the issue of "it takes a village" really starts to become a problem. My extended family had decent involvement in my life growing up since we all lived in the same metro area. But when you have people relocating across greater distances, this stops being possible. One of my sisters at the moment lives about 2500 miles away from me. If she stays in that area, or in a place similarly distant, her future children will rarely see me in person. I will have no involvement in raising them the way my aunts and uncles had involvement in raising me.

 

Neighbors who aren't family can potentially substitute for extended family involvement, but then, there is no guarantee that your neighbors will be like-minded people, or people who you trust your children with. Perhaps trying to set communities up such that they are isn't such a terrible idea.

 

 

Me personally, I still insist that if I am treating my neighbors right, they should never have cause to acknowledge my existence and I should never have cause to acknowledge theirs. I don't want to know my neighbors, if I do then I don't have privacy. But then, I don't have children to worry about either.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Ideally we wouldn't be forced to live with anyone. Ideally communities would arise by choice of the members not by force as in a family. An example is this very forum. But as can be seen the amount of disagreement even at a place we all agree to reside in demonstrates that communal existence is not going to be a magical solution.

[blade2k5 1,523]

There's three generations living in this house, all adults.  The reason, it's a lot cheaper to live when your normal household bills are split three ways.  Recently [last year], my in-laws signed the house and 40 acres of land over to my wife so we wouldn't lose it when they pass on to a better place.  Both of my in-laws are in their 80's (mother in-law is 81 and the old man is 85, but both are still kicking it like someone twenty years younger than they are), though it could be any day now when one or both of them don't wake up someday down the road.  It's not a day I'm looking forward to.

[Architechnid 186]

Interesting discussion. I would tend to agree: this is but one of many potential solutions to the problem. The one thing I do see is that all in this forum see the problem for what it is.

 

While clearly there is disagreement on whether you would partake in these groups, does anyone have an opinion of whether they should exist at all? If you were setting one up, how would you set it up?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

First of all there has to be full agreement to conform to the rules.  These rules must be mutually agreed as well.  Members who become disaffected are welcome to depart.  If a core group cannot maintain the residence and cannot find new members to make it viable, then it should be wrapped up.

 

Should this be tried?  Certainly every idea is worth a spin.

 

The important thing is amicability.  A thing like this cannot run in the midst of angst.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Aye i agree. Has to be mutually rewarding and enjoyed. Unlike renting off a landlord who dont give a toss about you and lives several miles away and several rungs above.

[Architechnid 186]

First of all there has to be full agreement to conform to the rules.  These rules must be mutually agreed as well.  Members who become disaffected are welcome to depart.  If a core group cannot maintain the residence and cannot find new members to make it viable, then it should be wrapped up.

 

Should this be tried?  Certainly every idea is worth a spin.

 

The important thing is amicability.  A thing like this cannot run in the midst of angst.

 

Ok, fair enough. What should those rules be? How should one come up with the rules, as I would anticipate each unit to have different rules based on the commonality that is shared?

 

How large should it be? In the hyper individualistic society of western society, let alone the U.S., let alone Texas, how would one make it appropriately inviting. If it is dissolved so easily, what is to become of the buildings that the cohousing unit inhabited?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

First of all there has to be full agreement to conform to the rules.  These rules must be mutually agreed as well.  Members who become disaffected are welcome to depart.  If a core group cannot maintain the residence and cannot find new members to make it viable, then it should be wrapped up.

 

Should this be tried?  Certainly every idea is worth a spin.

 

The important thing is amicability.  A thing like this cannot run in the midst of angst.

 

Ok, fair enough. What should those rules be? How should one come up with the rules, as I would anticipate each unit to have different rules based on the commonality that is shared?

 

How large should it be? In the hyper individualistic society of western society, let alone the U.S., let alone Texas, how would one make it appropriately inviting. If it is dissolved so easily, what is to become of the buildings that the cohousing unit inhabited?

 

The rules will be what are agreed among the participants at the outset.  Subject to amendment at quarterly meetings.

 

Size is a matter of financing to a great extent.  Practically a six unit MURB might well be the smallest unit that would work, but larger units may very well work as well for example, a farm or ranch.

 

Remember, in this kind of situation, everyone knows everyone.  More than one core family may live in one unit.