The Ark Co-op in Austin (deceased co-op)
Bill Scarborough
May 26, 1988 was the last day of existence of the Ark Co-op
in Austin, Texas. It had been one of the best co-ops in its
17-year history. During it last two years, it acquired a reputation
(part of it deserved and part of it not) of being a place where drugs
were running around. It was owned by the cooperative (or pseudo-
cooperative) College Houses Inc. Directors elected by other member
housed of the College Houses had voted to chase out all existing members
(not by eviction but by non-renewal of contracts) of the Ark (except
for a selected few) and by closing for the summer.
A lot of places in college towns close for the summer and re-open
in the fall. But this was the death of a co-op. The building re-opened
in the fall under the name "Pearl Street Co-op" (It is at 2000 Pearl
Street in Austin.) The alumnae/alumni list was ignored by the College
Houses Inc. Innocent people who had lived in the house in its better
days were tarred with the same brush as innocent people who lived in the
house to the end (by May 26, only 36 people remained in the house-- the
real troublemakers had left.)
Sound familiar to y'all in Berkeley? Only this time it was also
the right-wing media joined with "respectable" co-opers who later turned
tim...@ernie.berkeley.edu
Where's the rest of the article?
In Berkeley, the media was sensationalist, not "right-wing". The
"leftist" Daily Californian ran two or three front page articles on
Barrington per week last semester (perhaps their primary source of
news?). The stream of articles continued through the beginning of
this semester, even after Barrington was closed. Nearly all of the
articles were written by one particular writer.
One of the articles dealt with a rape. Because either the accused
or the victim or both had previously been to a Barrington party,
half of the article was spent on Barrington, even though the actual
rape occurred at a different co-op.
The Barrington issue was also complicated by a number of neighbors'
lawsuits. Probably many USCA members who voted to close Barrington
though that closing it would save legal defense costs, which it didn't.
Rob Robinson
I was on the board of director of College Houses at the time the Ark closed.
It was not simply a case of the big, bad directors stomping all over the
innocent co-opers at the Ark. There had been major financial problems at the
Ark, most of them stemming from declining membership. The Ark was simply not
holding its own, causing a large drain on the other co-ops in the corporation.
If not wholly unwilling to recruit new members, the leadership of the Ark was
certainly unsuccessful in their attempts. This went on for a year and half.
Given the dire financial circumstances of the corporation (read: the other
co-ops) we felt that the best action was to close the co-op, renovate it, and
open it under another name. The new co-op is doing well, and staying
(relatively) full. College Houses, and the other co-ops in Austin seem to
have weathered the Reagan years intact, if not somewhat scarred.
Bob Gustwick
>
> I was on the board of director of College Houses at the time the Ark closed.
> It was not simply a case of the big, bad directors stomping all over the
> innocent co-opers at the Ark. There had been major financial problems at the
> Ark, most of them stemming from declining membership. The Ark was simply not
> holding its own, causing a large drain on the other co-ops in the corporation
> If not wholly unwilling to recruit new members, the leadership of the Ark was
> certainly unsuccessful in their attempts. This went on for a year and half.
membership retention was much more a problem than recruiting.
our recruitment efforts and successes were similar to other
college house co-ops.
> Given the dire financial circumstances of the corporation (read: the other
> co-ops) we felt that the best action was to close the co-op, renovate it, and
> open it under another name. The new co-op is doing well, and staying
> (relatively) full. College Houses, and the other co-ops in Austin seem to
yes, i agree that pearl street can be viewed as a success. not
having been near college house in a while (and not really wanted
to get near the politics again) i don't know what the current
expectations of pearl street are, but the fall it re-opened
occupancy expectations were in the 80's. occupancy was set around
120 for the ark. so during the first semester of pearl street's
operation a successful 'full' co-op would have been viewed as
a 1/3 empty ark. numbers games like these were quite common
in college house.
also, i have to believe that the renovations helped tremendously
in membership retention. bathrooms w/ tiles/ceiling missing did little
to endear the members to the physical buiding. financial
difficulties of the corporation as a whole repeatedly caused
capitol improvement projects at the ark (as well as other houses) to
be axed. many major improvements (repainting, new carpet, bathroom
renovation) had been requested and axed or delayed while the ark
was in existance. only after the building was closed and other
college house property mortgaged were renovation funds made available.
many members left to live in new apartments for prices simliar to what
was charged at the ark for living in a dump.
> have weathered the Reagan years intact, if not somewhat scarred.
very true. and the survival of college house in the
awful texas (and austin) economy is quite the accomplishment.
Rodger Duncan, college house general administrator during much
of this time, was right on target when he explained that co-opers'
flight to cheaper apartments was beyond college house control.
during the real estate boom of the 80's many bad overly inflated
real estate purchases were made. even college house was guilty
of such a purchase, taos co-op. having bought the building at
the peak of the real estate frenzy later proved to be a cash
drain to college house (rents high enough to pay for the building
were too high to compete in the depressed renter's market of
the late 80's.) many of the apartments that college house members
were defecting to had low rents, and were losing money.
minimizing losses during bankruptcy was the plan for much of the
apartment/condo/house market. rodger's statement was something
like 'we can't compete with those businesses, they are structured
to go bankrupt while college houses' goal is to break even.'
for college house to have stayed afloat while much of the
competition around it has not is indeed quite the accomplishment.
and as rob said, it was not without scars. the closing of the
ark being one of them. perhaps one of biggest problems of the struggle
for suvival, was that college house often didn't recognize and cope with
the real enemy, a depressed economy, but rather turned inward on
itself to find a scapegoat. my greatest frustation with the
ark closure was that i saw the same problems occuring in other
college house co-ops, and saw how others were also unable
to solve these problems. college house was on a witch
hunt to find an easy cure to its problems, and the ark was the
casualty. and i agree with rob, when he says that 'It
was not simply a case of the big, bad directors stomping all over the
innocent co-opers at the Ark.' no-one was innocent in the ark closing.
and the 'big, bad directors' weren't evil awful people. they were
a reflection of the 250 college house members who felt they had
found the awful evil scapegoat, the cancerous ark, and felt it
needed to be cut out of the corporate body. it was not a simple case.
it was a very complex, convoluted, and ugly affair. all parties
involved: the board, the membership, the staff, and the ark were guilty
of participating in events that led to the ark closure.
...bob
