Where do we go from here?
Marganne Meyer
community housing -- whether it is cohousing or a variation of it.
I've been busy writing on the Cohousing mailing list as the subject
of affordable housing was raised once again.
I've received private email from coho list members who really want to
explore this option and have encouraged me to keep writing about
low-cost community housing on that list. I probably won't give up,
but after many years of trying to get better footing for this kind of
housing, I don't have the same amount of energy I used to have to
keep this topic alive there.
Quite often the Coho list discussion ends with a suggestion that if I
feel so strongly about low-cost community housing, I should take on
development of an alternative model, find people to join me, and get
it built. It's a logical suggestion, but not one I'm capable of
doing. I don't know anyone else who is ready to step up.
This is when I get discouraged with participating (or following) the
main coho list. So far, most of the successful regular coho projects
are developed on a regional basis where people can meet and talk
face-to-face and search for a location together.
I'm not sure that will happen yet for low-cost community housing. I
DO think that once there are several successfully-built projects, the
process will be much easier.
So what needs to happen in this gap between getting people seriously
committed to the concept and creating a real, live model people can
see, touch, and walk through? Do all of you think it's possible to
create a successful model drawing from members across the U.S. or
just regionally?
The two examples I see of projects attempting to bridge the gap are
coho projects that purposely create small house rental potential and
with projects like Ron's -- closer to 'regular' cohousing in price,
but including small, secondary homes in the process.
Can appropriately priced (own or rent) units get built if we draw
entirely from those of us who are income-impaired?
I'm biased against trying to work with government through existing
grants and programs specifically for low-income families. (Also am
biased against the term 'low-income families' since so many of us
don't have children. It makes me wonder if the government programs
are weighted to favor larger families. Not that it's a bad thing --
raising a family is impossibly expensive these days. But it doesn't
appear to offer a path for Baby Boomer singles and couples who have
lost much of their retirement funds.)
I am seeing a few hints of hope here and there that some government
agencies are moving in a direction that could help all low-income
people. (Sorry, but I continue to forget that just because someone
wants to create a small, inexpensive home that they are
income-impaired.)
This information comes under the overall tent of Sustainable
Communities -- using zoning, planning and development to create more
affordable, walkable, efficient and sustainable places to live.
_______
If you are interested, here is the URL of a site focused on this concept.
http://www.epa.gov/livability/partnership/tools.html
http://www.epa.gov/livability/index.htm
This information is about Partners for Smart Growth and the
HUD-DOT-EPA Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities.
It says: EPA helps communities grow in ways that expand economic
opportunity, protect public health and the environment, and create
and enhance the places that people love. Through research, tools,
partnerships, case studies, grants, and technical assistance, EPA is
helping America's communities turn their visions of the future into
reality.
__________
So suggestions, ideas? Is it possible to create a project plan on
paper that limits the basic individual buy-in to $50,000 (and no
higher as construction costs try to rise)? Can we select, for
instance, several small-house models and draw up a budget based on a
limited buy-in? To create community, must we all select one
geographical location, then identify a particular neighborhood or
mobile home park?
Cheers!
Marganne
Ron
possibilities for doing this with under $50K options available and
wanted to mention a couple of my thoughts.
For an urban option, retrofitting a neighborhood seems the best and a
very doable solution. I recently met some folks in Milwaukee that just
started doing this by buying two large houses next to each other with
anticipation to purchase more. They have been able to divide the
houses to make small investment and rental options. Here is their
website: http://www.bayviewecovillage.org/Home
Here are two websites of more established groups: http://enrightecovillage.org/,
http://www.nstreetcohousing.org/
I imagine the same possibilities could work rurally as well. One
option would be to purchase a large house and then build small
cottages. Here is a website for someone that started with a four
apartment house: http://www.livingnewstories.com/the-lotus-lodge-inn-community-center
Another rural option is to consider alternative construction methods
like earthbag, cob, or other low cost (but labor intensive methods).
In the same vein, whether urban or rural, is the option to function as
your own contractor for new construction which can easily save around
20% of the costs.
But, as you mentioned Marganne, it all comes down to someone(s)
stepping up to the plate. The project I am proposing offers a small
house option for a projected price of under $70K. I also think I could
help a group do better than that if there are any plate stepper uppers
around to organize the projects.
Naomi
now. . . . That's what I'm really more interested in. :)
Also--I see that you've ditched the "slow transition trailer park
model" I posted earlier. Oh well!
And, I am excited for you to be starting on your project! Good luck
with that. We'll have to look you up if we end up in Asheville.
Best,
Naomi
Ron
much. That said, I do think that property zoned for a mobile home park
could be a great option for a creative alternative. I am a bit hung up
on the aesthetics of an emotionally healthy environment and trailers
don't quite cut it for me. However, I do see how it could be an only
alternative in some cases - but only temporary while building warm and
creative earthbag or cob houses.
Marganne Meyer
there is enough flexibility in the process to include people with
almost any size of income. Not sure a mixture of families with
children would financially work well with a project that can
accommodate older singles and couples, but, who knows? I'm biased
toward Boomers pooling their limited resources as they get older to
create community where they might live for the remainder of their
lives -- helping each other, forming more of a family. Perhaps
something like this could be located nearby another community of
younger families with kids so there is cross pollination.
In Sacramento, most of the old Victorians downtown are converted into
two, four or six apartments, then rented. Might be easier to design a
'perfect' small home unit, then build it. But retrofitting might have
savings in other ways.
I'm unable to 'step up to the plate' but really would like to work up
some written guesstimates of the type of project that could be built
for a maximum of $50,000 per unit. For instance, the price of the
land might prohibit development in areas where land is generally more
expensive. But, if a city or county wants to encourage this type of
development, land might be purchase at a lower rate.
Cheers!
Marganne
Marganne Meyer
>Also--I see that you've ditched the "slow transition trailer park
>model" I posted earlier. Oh well!
I'm still up for further exploration of the slow transition trailer
park model. Although I don't know it first hand, I suspect the market
for fairly recent mobile homes or even manufactured or modular homes
is available to people with less funds. There's much that can be done
to modify/update a mobile home, then build something else and use the
mobile homes for rentals.
Perhaps as we explored this idea, we might find it isn't as easy or
less expensive than we thought it might be. Won't know until we try.
Cheers!
Marganne
Naomi
I'm too young for your plan, and I have a kid, and I also see some
serious drawbacks to the idea of forming a group where everyone is
close to the same age. Maybe I'm too idealistic to believe in mixed-
income, mixed-race, and mixed-age housing and should settle for just
one? Here are some of my perceived problems with a primarily-boomer
project:
(1) Children are a light and a joy in this bleak and depressing world
and you would be depriving of yourself of exposure to them.
(2) As far as building houses, 60-70 is getting a little up there for
the physical aspects of that project. Especially high-up things, like
roofing. My dad is in great shape considering that he's 66. (Lifts
weights at least 3 times a week, has no problem walking 3 miles
somewhere and 3 miles back, got up on the flat part of the attic roof
(more than 30 feet up) to paint it white recently.) But my husband
does mow the slopes in the front of the yard (think 60 degrees off
level) and we did help him cut up and haul a tree that fell in his
front yard recently, and my brother and husband helped him move a
heavy old stove out of their "upstairs kitchen" recently and it is
sometimes nice to have some younger, stronger, folks around. I really
can't imagine 8 75-year-olds moving that stove.
(3) Younger people with kids benefit from having older people around.
As far as young parents go, I think that I'm pretty good. I've read at
least 20 parenting books. My daughter tests well above grade level in
all areas. And she's a pretty happy kid. (My husband and I both also
finished our master's degrees on full, academic, merit-based
scholarships within five years of finishing high school, with a baby.)
BUT, I've benefited tremendously by living either with or very near to
my parents over the last eight years. If I have an errand to run, my
father will engage my daughter in a game of cribbage or chess and my
daughter will be spared the tedium of bland time in the car. And my
parents let me know when I'm being to hard on her or too stubborn or
too mean. I'm a better parent for being a watched parent, and for
having people to put a mirror in my face and say, "do you like what
you see," when I'm not doing such a good job. (It happens to
everyone.) My husband and I also benefit from my parents in non-child-
rearing ways. My parents know much more than they taught me in the 18
years that I was a "child" and they continue to teach me things on a
regular basis. I'm not sure that your knowledge base or your memories
will be as valuable to your own generation as it is to the next. (I've
also benefited from having "mentors" in the workplace. I appreciate
them all and it was great to be able to share knowledge with all of
them.)
(4) You say that you want to build a family or a village or a co-
housing community. But families and villages are multi-generational
and have always been multi-generational, and different generations
have different places in them. I, personally, find this whole idea of
separating out our kids and sticking them with all other kids exactly
their age for 7 or more hours a day and then separating out our elders
and sticking them in nursing homes where we don't have to look at them
just SICK. I could rant on about this and about how this is a
reflection of unhealthy values in our society, but I'll just stop
now.
So--I think that you should consider families. Even if you end up with
a "family" buy-in, and a "couple" buy-in and a "single" buy-in.
Families need bigger houses than singles, but not three times as
large. So, I don't think that they would protest to a larger buy-in
amount, as long as it was reasonable. On the other hand, families
could also possibly put in more time on community projects. And I do
think it would be worth finding small projects that kids can do to
make their neighborhood a better place, even if they couldn't
contribute quite as much time as adults, to build the mindset of being
part of a meaningful neighborhood and learn that being part of a
meaningful neighborhood means giving when you can and graciously
receiving from others when needed.
Just my thoughts. . . .
Naomi
Ron
dependent on mixed-everything neighborhoods - including mixed-income.
I can't imagine growing old without kids and younger adults integrated
in community.
Ron
Teri Zipf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Low Cost Community Housing" group.
To post to this group, send email to low-cost-comm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to low-cost-community-...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/low-cost-community-housing?hl=en.
Marganne Meyer
>But families and villages are multi-generational
>and have always been multi-generational, and different generations
>have different places in them.
I can't disagree with anything you said in your post. I've been
looking for some sort of community or cohousing project where I can
afford to live for more than 10 years now. I've been a subscriber and
participant in the national cohousing mailing list for all that time
and have sought our many other resources. Cohousers would agree with
the statements about the many advantages of multi-generational living.
The big craze now in cohousing is called Elder Housing. Apparently
most regular projects aren't willing to fund universal access in
commonly held structures. It would be wonderful to think neighbors in
a community would be responsible for taking care of people as they
become more and more disabled. Unfortunately these days it is the
exception rather than the rule. It's often not a matter of choice.
I don't think I'd care to live in an entire project made up of 40 to
60 people who are 50+ years old. However, this is the cross-section
of our population who are preparing to face the inevitability of
aging. Many don't have money to pay to stay in even the least
expensive places that offer assisted living. Many have lost their
jobs, possibly their homes, and their pensions due to the recession
and what was done in financial markets.
My feeling is that the only way we might help ourselves is to band
together in smaller groups so we can share the burden of mortgages
and/or debilitating illnesses. What is impossible to do alone might
be accomplished if people with similar needs band together.
In an ideal world, I agree we all could benefit from living in a
multi-generational community. Unfortunately, I haven't found this
opportunity yet. People who are 50+ without substantial equity from
owning a home or who plain just can't afford to buy a house for
whatever reason are looking for viable alternatives.
I hope I'm proven wrong. In the mean time, I'm getting older. When I
started exploring living in community I was 40 years old and fit. Now
I'm not. While we all wait for the ideal of multi-general community,
care and housing to arrive, us Baby Boomers continue to age. While we
wait, banding together in a small community is a sound move.
There is a multi-generational cohousing project not far from where I
live. I can't afford to live there even though the prices are
considered to be very reasonable. They've built an Elder Cohousing
project immediately adjacent to the multi-generational one that
includes universal access and even quarters for medical help to live
on the premises if needed. For those people who still can afford such
luxuries, this is about as close as one comes to multi-generational
living in cohousing these days.
Many people who are 50+ are very capable of caring for themselves for
many, many years. No one ever plans to become disabled or have a
heart attack or get hit by a car. I was responsible for taking care
of my mother during the last 15 years of her life. She didn't have to
live only on Medicare. She had money from the sale of the house she
lived in for almost 50 years and received funds from my father's
union pension after his death.
Even if I had been able to, I could not have physically or
financially care for her during this time as Parkinson's Disease
increasingly ravaged her body. I'm very grateful she could afford
excellent care until she died. Even if there were other family
members who could take care of her themselves, she still would have
needed money to pay for her required level of care.
The last 7 years of her life, she was totally dependent on caretakers
for everything. She couldn't sit up in bed let alone take herself to
the bathroom. Most of that time she couldn't feed herself because she
couldn't hold a utensil or cup.
It was awful to watch. However, I was VERY happy that the board and
care home where she lived was run by a couple who had two young
children. I think some of the happiest moments she had during that
time was interacting with the kids and watching them grow. It never
would have happened if she had lost the house due to foreclosure or
lost part of my father's pension.
Families and villages may always have been multi-generational. It's
not the case now for a growing part of the population. I very
definitely know I'm not the only person faced with figuring out how
to sustain my life for the next 20 to 30 years. Many people don't
have families or neighbors who will take in the elderly or pay for
their care.
While we are waiting for our culture to return to caring for the
elderly, those of us who don't have much money have a choice: live
alone or come together to form a new type of family or village.
We probably all have very strong opinions about this subject. We
could spend a lot of effort and energy debating this topic. Rather
than disagreeing, let's keep our creative energy focused on how we
can affordably create a community that hopefully will become like
family or a village.
On this issue, let's just agree to disagree and move on.
Cheers!
Marganne
Ron
Naomi
I can see your point. And, I have to admit that while I'd be
completely willing to take in and financially support my parents or my
husband's parents if need be, I wouldn't be willing to care for random
elderly people unless I really liked them and I got something in
return. (Childcare or a house or something.)
My thoughts are that it would be easier to band together a group of
people than a group of people that are a specific age. (Young people
aren't exactly having an easy time with the economy the way it is
right now either. There are plenty of kids that go off to college,
graduate, and find that they cannot get a job due to their lack of
experience and are thousands and thousands of dollars in debt.) But,
if it would be easier to band together people in a specific age range
in your area, go for it.
Also, what about that Enright Ecovillage Ron posted? They have a 2-
bedroom house available for a little less than $60,000, which isn't
that much higher than $50,000, and you could probably rent out the
second bedroom to someone in a similar circumstance as yourself and
recover the difference within a few years. Or maybe you could host
people who are interested in learning more about co-housing /
ecovillages for a week or two for a reasonable fee. Given that the
front of the house isn't gorgeous--check out the view from the deck on
back. And the urban ecology link. It looks like a great place to me.
If I weren't tied down to by husband's PhD program or my extended
family, I would be considering moving to Cincinnati!
http://enrightecovillage.org/village-life/where-to-live/
And, if you were to purchase such a house, with an extra room, then
when it got down to it, you could have someone come live with you and
agree to take care of your basic needs in your last few years in
exchange for inheriting the house. I know many a twenty-something that
would jump on that opportunity.
It looks like the other one he posted also had one-bedroom apartment
options, but being in California and not Cincinnati may be out of your
cost range. The prices on N Street aren't posted. . . .
Naomi