[LCCH] co housing principals used for urban revitalization?

[Naomi]

Hi all,

This idea has been floating around in my head for a bit and I know
this group isn't really active, but I thought that someone might have
something to say on the topic.

Does anyone know of a situation where cohousing has been used to
revitalize and/or integrate downtrodden urban neighborhoods?

I live in Birmingham, AL and we have neighborhoods with very
inexpensive beautiful old houses and lots of empty lots that are in
need of attention. Our neighborhoods and society are divided in every
possible way - by income, race, and education. We also have some
thriving neighborhoods, and I don't see why some of the downtrodden
ones can't be turned into more functional communities.

That said, I don't see me (late twenties white woman with a master's
degree and family) moving into one of these neighborhoods (average
income $16,000 / family / year. 95+% African American) making much of
a difference in the social ills by myself. My daughter was the only
white child in her class for 2.5 years, and trust me that one white
child does not an integrated school system make. Similarly, one white
family cannot integrate a neighborhood and one middle class family
cannot bring a lower income neighborhood up.

If, however, 20 or more families intent on building a good
neighborhood moved into a neighborhood one by one over a short period
of time, I could see this having a much more measurable and meaningful
impact. (I would think that you'd want to establish a group with x-
many people with college educations, y-many younger families, z-many
older couples, and so on establishing minimums. (I do think that most
white folks around here need a certain number of other white folks
around to feel comfortable, so there would probably need to be a
minimum number of white families as well.) I guess each would have to
agree to certain things--a certain amount of time on "building
community" activities (like weekly common meals) among the smaller
group (but including already existing neighborhood inhabitants if they
wanted to come) and a certain amount of time on "building community"
activities that would reach out to the existing community. (Like
volunteering to tutor at the nearby library or cutting your elderly
neighbor's grass.) Since all group members would presumably be buying
"fixer-uppers" there could be some encouraged or mandated bartering of
house fixing up time as well.

There would be financial incentive, of course, since if you can buy a
house for $50,000, fix it up, and improve the neighborhood, then you
could theoretically sell it for much more than 50,000 on down the
line. (This wouldn't be house-flipping--more like neighborhood
flipping. But seriously, my parents house, which is valued at 500,000,
would be worth less than 100,000 in other parts of town. And if you
"flip" a neighborhood, then you've improved the neighborhood for
everyone who lives in it, not just yourself. So, despite the negative
connotations with house-flipping, I can't see neighborhood-flipping
being a bad thing.)

This would be a very inexpensive way to do co-housing.. . . I'm not
sure if you'd want to form a nucleus of houses and build outward or
scatter among the existing community members with a goal of a certain
percent of a larger area.

I guess it couldn't be 100% cohousing. Just some sort of hybrid. . .
With the idea of building up existing community.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on such an endeavor and also
if you know of anything like this that has been done.

Warm regards,

Naomi

--
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.

[E L Cobb]

Naomi, that's called gentrification. And it forces lower-income people
to move farther out, when they can no longer afford to buy houses in a
neighborhood that was formerly affordable... it has happened again and
again in the u.s.. contractors eye choice real estate that happens to
have poor people living in run-down houses on it, they start buying it
up, tempting lower middle-class or poverty level people with cold hard
cash (although far less than perhaps the property is worth), starts
building chi-chi condos or townhouses or half-a-million dollar
macmansions, the whites move in to "build a good neighborhood,"
starbucks follow, real estate prices rise up, and the gap between rich
and poor just gets worse and worse.

where do you think the social ills come from? why do you think their
average incomes are only $16,000 a year? and like it or not, it's built
into our system. that's capitalism, the american way of life.

and there has got to be a way of "doing good" without condescending
toward the very folks you are trying to "help."

liza

*Liza*


http://www.TheSecondActofELC.wordpress.com/

[Ron]

Naomi - I think it is a great idea. Gentrification does not have to
mean displacement and, with a mission to build community with the
larger population, your plan could offer hope. Personally I would
rather see a form of "just" gentrification than the rule of fear and
crime in the ghettos.

Here is a great model in Davis California: http://www.nstreetcohousing.org/

Graham Meltzer did a good story on them in Sustainable Community -
which, by the way, is a great book on the social and environmental
impact of co-housing. Here is a preview:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tOFW7Q3D_jcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sustainable+community&source=bll&ots=3VGdM6Xg_g&sig=bFXPXJe2-saQXmNQgpswvKGCQE4&hl=en&ei=rPXUS_ixPI6E9AS7trm_Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=21&ved=0CFYQ6AEwFA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I also know of some faith based groups that have moved into inner city
neighborhoods to build community. Some have done a great job without
condescension and proselytizing.

Let us know your progress. I personally would be interested in
exploring the idea before a conventional middle class community - keep
me in your loop.

Ron

[Heather McClure]

Hi Naomi,

This is exactly what I've had in my mind for about 8 years.  I'm not really familiar with anyone who is doing exactly what you describe currently, although I do know a Christian group in Lexington, KY that is made up of mostly educated, upper-class white people who are purposely buying their individual homes in the lower-income neighborhoods so to integrate and build community there. 

I'm pretty poor myself these days, but I would be very interested in attempting this (building cohousing communities in a low-income urban neighborhood...with the intent to revitalize and "flip" the neighborhood), if their were other like-minded people to join me. 

Peace,
Heather

--
"Way will open."

[Heather McClure]

I'm sorry if I sounded racist or condescending in my reply, I wasn't meaning that.  I'm a low-income, non-professional person w/out a college degree and I feel most at home in low-income neighborhoods (plus, they are the only ones I can afford).  I think the point would be in this situation is not to cause gentrification, but actually revitalize the neighborhood from a grassroots level, and take pre-cautions to keep property prices still relatively low, but work to change the other factors that make some urban areas bad to live in: crime, drugs, lack of opportunities, education, etc.  As long as you're not building/creating things like the condos and starbucks you've described, you're probably not going to attract the home buyers that would cause gentrification anyway.  And if new things are built from a cohousing angle, much of the property would be held in common and it would harder for developers to get it if they decided they wanted to.

--
"Way will open."

[Suzanne Ryan]

I agree with Liza...what you describe is gentrification. Some
impressive cosmetic surgery has occurred under gentrification--but it
historically has done nothing to solve the cycle of poverty.

I guess it depends on the intent of the those buying up the homes. If
it's to raise the value of property and attract higher income folk--
well, that's been done, as described as above.

There would have to be real commitment to co-housing (which I
understand to mean living a green lifestyle, including sustainable
gardening)--with an opportunity for the existing community to
participate.

On Apr 24, 3:46 pm, Naomi <naomi.ander...@gmail.com> wrote:

[PaulaL]

Sounds like Robin Hood in reverse. This gentrification is one way to steal from the poor & give to the rich.


-sparkie


--- On Sun, 4/25/10, E L Cobb <elco...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Marganne Meyer]

Hey Liza.
Good to hear from you.

If moving in under gentrification is based mostly on people wanting
to increase the value of their investments (take advantage of
supposedly rising real estate prices), is there a term to describe
people who move into a low-income area to find a place to live and
settle?

From subscribing to the national Cohousing list, I think some
projects end up being located on the fringe of low-cost
neighborhoods, especially those that are rehabbing existing
structures. My impression is that most cohousing projects are being
built and populated by the middle to upper-middle class. These people
have a lot of flexibility in their discretionary spending, so the
price of construction continues to rise as it is built.

For me it's been very tempting lately to scoop up a home in
foreclosure that's going for way less than $50,000 here in
Sacramento. What stops me is: 1. I don't have much discretionary
funds to fix something if the home requires a major repair, 2. Don't
think I'd feel safe in the neighborhoods where the deals are located,
and 3. not sure I want to tie myself down to living in Sacramento. If
I knew several other people who also were buying homes in the same
area, maybe the same street, I'd reconsider.

At 7:38 PM -0400 4/25/10, E L Cobb wrote:
>and there has got to be a way of "doing good" without condescending
>toward the very folks you are trying to "help."

A delicate task. Often new people moving into a depressed area aren't
welcomed with open arms into a low-income community. I expect it
would take a lot of time and carefully-thought-out ways of building
trust. There are several books written that describe how to approach
this type of community building, but can't put my finger on them.
Sharon Villiness might chime in here because I think I discovered
them through her.

On the other hand, without getting into a 'political' discussion,
there is a larger gap now in our society between the haves and the
have-nots which makes for more people needing to seek out low-cost
housing.

Cheers!
Marganne

[Marganne Meyer]

Ron is right. There's actually two cohousing projects in Davis that
are rehab-based rather than bought and built new. There also is one
in Sacramento. These are true cohousing projects.

There also is a project in Petaluma where a cohousing project was set
up in an apartment building for low-income people that had to qualify
under guidelines. It was all rental instead of owned. Not sure how
that turned out. There was some questions about how well people would
take to the tenants of cohousing when they were just looking for an
affordable apartment.

Could be wrong, but I don't think these projects were built in
locations that are/were depressed. Davis is a university town. Many
of the people who taught at Davis like to stay there after
retirement. Davis is known as a city that does things 'differently' -
much more innovative and ecological minded than many other places. I
suspect the people in the two Davis projects all have known each
other for a long, long time.

Thanks for the link to the story/book on Sustainable Community. There
is a movement afoot that tries to pick and choose parts of different
approaches to building housing and community and blend it together
with an area that's open to making rather radical changes to zoning
laws and building codes. I'm convinced we'll all be living in some
iteration of this kind of community within another generation. It is
an abrupt about-face to the big McMansion on a large lot that many
have aspired to in past generations.

I keep feeling that there already are areas within the U.S. where
people are seriously looking at instituting this kind of change in
their small part of the world. I'm just not sure about the best way
to connect with these people. Part of that is because this movement
is so new it's been difficult to define. It's like cohousing still is
so new that many people cringe at the idea because of all the
activities and supposed lack of privacy.

At 8:27 PM -0700 4/25/10, Ron wrote:
>Naomi - I think it is a great idea. Gentrification does not have to
>mean displacement and, with a mission to build community with the
>larger population, your plan could offer hope. Personally I would
>rather see a form of "just" gentrification than the rule of fear and

Cheers!
Marganne

[Marganne Meyer]

At 10:00 AM -0500 4/25/10, Heather McClure wrote:
>Hi Naomi,

>
>I do know a Christian group in Lexington, KY that is made up of
>mostly educated, upper-class white people who are purposely buying
>their individual homes in the lower-income neighborhoods so to
>integrate and build community there.

I also come across these kind of endeavors. Not sure, but my gut says
many of these efforts involve some kind of government funding. I have
a big bias against getting existing government programs involved with
a new project -- although I'd like to be proved wrong. Some cohousing
projects purposely allot 2 or 3 units for low-income families.
Sometimes the requirements that come with qualifying for these units
doesn't work very well with the methods and practices set up by the
project.

>I'm pretty poor myself these days, but I would be very interested in
>attempting this (building cohousing communities in a low-income
>urban neighborhood...with the intent to revitalize and "flip" the
>neighborhood), if their were other like-minded people to join me.
>
>Peace,
>Heather

I'm in the same boat, Heather. I'm 55 years young and have no
relatives, siblings, children or family. I'm living on a fixed income
due to an 'invisible' disability. My energy is limited physically,
but my experience, education and background would compensate for this
in a low-income project.

I just KNOW there are others out there like us who want various
degrees of 'community'. It's taking a long time to connect, then
consider people's needs and geographical locations. I've been told by
cohousing people that it's much easier to look for and gather
like-minded people in your own immediate geographical area. I can
believe it. For me, living in some shape of community is more
important to me than location.

Cheers!
Marganne

[Marganne Meyer]

Heather, I'm sorry if I came on a little hard about how to make sure
you have a good mix of cultures, etc. in a project. The Fair Housing
laws spell out what you can and can't do. For instance, if you have
an apartment to rent, you can't discriminate against applicants on
the basis of color, orientation, etc. You didn't sound racist or
condescending to me.

It might be great to find an area where a group is making a concerted
effort to help bring together the community in various was already. I
suspect program coordinators would welcome people moving into the
community who want to make a difference and will work with them to
help the community.

Cheers!
Marganne

At 6:57 PM -0500 4/25/10, Heather McClure wrote:
>I'm sorry if I sounded racist or condescending in my reply, I wasn't
>meaning that. I'm a low-income, non-professional person w/out a
>college degree and I feel most at home in low-income neighborhoods
>(plus, they are the only ones I can afford). I think the point
>would be in this situation is not to cause gentrification, but
>actually revitalize the neighborhood from a grassroots level, and
>take pre-cautions to keep property prices still relatively low, but
>work to change the other factors that make some urban areas bad to
>live in: crime, drugs, lack of opportunities, education, etc.

[Marganne Meyer]

At 5:23 PM -0700 4/25/10, Suzanne Ryan wrote:
>
>I guess it depends on the intent of the those buying up the homes. If
>it's to raise the value of property and attract higher income folk--
>well, that's been done, as described as above.

That's the difference in viewing your home as an investment rather
than making it a real home where you plan to stay for a long time.

>There would have to be real commitment to co-housing (which I
>understand to mean living a green lifestyle, including sustainable
>gardening)--with an opportunity for the existing community to
>participate.

That's not quite what cohousing means. Some projects set goals to
have their project very 'green'. Some do not, especially if you need
to rehab existing structures. Many projects don't have gardens to
grow some of their own food. And some have the goal of building up
agricultural activities within the project so it increases the
percentage of food the project provides to its members.

Cohousing, IMHO, has more to do with people getting together to set
missions and goals for a project, then jointly invest in purchasing
land, and developing the property. The joint financial
responsibilities are a big part of cohousing. In some projects,
members own their own lot and build a detached house that meets their
financial abilities, but then co-own the common house with everyone
else.

Mostly homes with common walls and similar features are created. I'm
told that this is the only way to reduce expenses during
construction. Since some cohousers consider their home as an
investment they feel that allowing 'lesser quality' homes to be built
near their home would have a detrimental affect on the value of the
neighborhood. Some have said that any structure that's less than
1,200 square feet would end up being a rental - and renters are
undesirable because they don't maintain their property. (Not agreeing
with this sentiment.)

Cohousing also means active participation with other members on
committees and projects. Some projects have communal dinners 3 to 4
times a week where the responsibility to prepare the meal rotates to
each participant.

To learn more, you might want to check out the website for the
Cohousing Association of the United States at
http://www.cohousing.org.

Cheers!
Marganne

[Marganne Meyer]

I can't remember how many people on this list came from the cohousing
mailing list or from the Small House Society (SHS) list. Just to
review, this group started out trying to figure out a way to build a
cohousing project consisting of individual small homes (less than
1,000 square feet probably). Part of the SHS movement is to live more
simply and questions how much square feet you really need to live
comfortably.

I like it because it would give me more control over my expenses.
Smaller homes generally cost less to build. It's like deciding to not
spend so much money building a big home so you have money leftover to
spend on other things. It's also easier to keep a small home clean --
more time for other activities in your life.

My thought was some kind of marriage between cohousing and small
homes might be the answer for folks like us who don't want to spend a
lot of money on a large house. Also, if you reduce the size of your
home, you might share things with your neighbors so everyone wouldn't
have to own a shovel or have a washing machine. Removing items from a
small home that can be located in a common area for everyone to share
makes more economic sense.

That's kind of where we started. Another idea was to purchase a
mobile home park which already would be zoned for multiple homes.
There would be places to live already located on the property so you
could live there and work on construction of a new small home if you
wanted to do that.

Major obstacles to development of small homes are restrictive zoning
laws and building codes. In some places the codes set a minimum size
at 1,200 square feet. There also are rules about multiple unrelated
people living on one piece of property that's zoned for only one home.

I've left a lot out. Feel free to add in anything you might feel is
relevant to what we've discussed.

[Suzanne Ryan]

Marganne wrote:
>
>
>
> That's not quite what cohousing means. Some projects set goals to
> have their project very 'green'. Some do not, especially if you need
> to rehab existing structures. Many projects don't have gardens to
> grow some of their own food. And some have the goal of building up
> agricultural activities within the project so it increases the
> percentage of food the project provides to its members.
>
> Cohousing, IMHO, has more to do with people getting together to set
> missions and goals for a project, then jointly invest in purchasing
> land, and developing the property. The joint financial
> responsibilities are a big part of cohousing. In some projects,
> members own their own lot and build a detached house that meets their
> financial abilities, but then co-own the common house with everyone
> else.
>

Thanks for clarifying. I guess I need to focus my search on cohousing
that aims to live green and have sustainable agriculture.

[Ron]

Do those of you making judgments about condescension and theft have
another answer? It certainly isn't leaving the neighborhoods to the
criminals or government programs. Isn't it a bit condescending to
judge others attempts at a just approach - unless, of course you all
are living in the poverty and crime yourselves and like it that way?

On Apr 25, 10:14 pm, PaulaL <dymphna.smi...@att.net> wrote:
> Sounds like Robin Hood in reverse. This gentrification is one way to steal from the poor & give to the rich.
>
> -sparkie
>

> --- On Sun, 4/25/10, E L Cobb <elcob...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/low-cost-community-housing?hl=en.

>
> --
> 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/low-cost-community-housing?hl=en.

[Naomi]

Hi Liza,

Can you clarify exactly what you found to be condescending? This was
not my intention and I'd like to know specifically what I said that
was offensive so as to avoid offending in the future.

I think that we would actually agree that there is a thin line between
"revitalization" and "gentrification" and maybe I came across too
hard. However, when houses are being left empty or torn down and lots
become more and more overgrown for years and years (because if you
were to build a brand new house on a lot in one of these
neighborhoods, it's value would be much less than the cost to build),
my thoughts are that something needs to change. Birmingham is, to a
certain extent, like a donut. Empty on the inside of the city and busy
outside of the city. (Many people actually drive over an hour from the
burbs rather than living in the city and our school system is about a
third the size that it was in the late 80s.) I agree that there should
be low-income housing and there is, but there should also be
neighborhoods that the middle class aren't terrified to live in. My
goal would be to stick with revitalization with the goal of helping to
build a mixed income, integrated community, that middle class folks
feel comfortable living in, without forcing out the existing community
members. (Except for maybe violent criminals and drug pushers--for
whom I have no love.) It's NOT to eliminate low-income housing options
and replace them tacky chain coffee shops or high rise condominiums.

Additionally, I must admit that I love OLD houses. The house that I
grew up in is more than 100 years old and I would love to be able to
buy and renovate a house built sometime between 1895 and 1945. Lots of
these older houses have beautiful features and were well built by true
craftsmen, but are deteriorating because they are neglected. I
wouldn't even bring this up if I didn't see buildings that other
people see as run-down as charming and full of potential. Part of such
a project would be to rescue houses and other buildings that are worth
rescuing, but are currently being neglected because the money to
maintain them just isn't there.

And since someone brought up the topic of cohousing being green or
not. I understand that "eco-friendly" is not a requirement. The main
idea that I take from co-housing is the idea of building real
communities where everyone agrees to know and develop meaningful
relationships with their neighbors. That said, I do lean towards being
pretty eco-friendly. And, for the most part, I think that using
existing buildings and salvaged building materials is more eco-
friendly than building brand-new buildings, just like buying a used
tshirt at the thrift store for 99 cents has less environment impact
than buying a brand new organic bamboo tshirt for $30.

I'm sorry to have offended anybody. I've been in and out of these
neighborhoods because I'm from Birmingham, have lived here all my
life, have taught in the city schools system and have sent my child to
the city school system. I love Birmingham as a city and I want what's
best for the city and for the people of Birmingham. My intentions are
absolutely not to take advantage of anyone, but rather to establish
mutually beneficial relationships while building community (something
that I think resonates with co-housing principles) without forcing
existing residents to participate in anything that they don't want to.

Best,

Naomi

[PaulaL]

I really like this idea of fixing up old homes & having mixed income neighborhoods. I hate seeing all these once beautiful old homes vacant with boarded up windows. I especially love the large Victorian homes. Some of the boarded up homes are that style of housing.

-sparkie


--- On Tue, 4/27/10, Naomi <naomi.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

[PaulaL]

I belong to the Small House Society list & would be interested in the co-housing as a possibility. A friend of mine and & have been having discussions quite a bit over the last 6 months or so about small houses and similar possibilities.

-sparkie


--- On Mon, 4/26/10, Marganne Meyer <marg...@macnexus.org> wrote:

[Marganne Meyer]

At 5:52 PM -0700 4/26/10, PaulaL wrote:
>I belong to the Small House Society list & would be interested in
>the co-housing as a possibility. A friend of mine and & have been
>having discussions quite a bit over the last 6 months or so about
>small houses and similar possibilities.

It also seems a natural combination to me as well. I find people who
consider living with less space in a more simple fashion are much
more open to cohousing than cohousing people are willing to consider
scaling back.

Where have you and your friend considered locating your project?

In Sacramento, where I live, many, many old Victorians have been
restored. What interests me more are the craftsmen bungalows that are
restored to their original glory. :-)

[PaulaL]

We have discussed several places-some of them in my home state of Indiana. The last time we discussed a possible location it was in Knox, Indiana, a town of 3,000 people. My friend is in Portland, IN, a town of 6,000 and mentioned a small 1 bedroom house for sale there. She said if I bought the house for myself she'd be interested in living in a house or shed on my property. She even assured me she could find a warm enough shelter to keep her pet cockatiel in the shed. She, her former fiance, and I also considered living alone in tiny houses on the same property out in the country-either in Indiana or in Kansas. -sparkie

--- On Wed, 5/5/10, Marganne Meyer <marg...@macnexus.org> wrote:

From: Marganne Meyer <marg...@macnexus.org> Subject: Re: [LCCH] Marriage of small homes and cohousing To: low-cost-comm...@googlegroups.com

Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 8:54 AM

At 5:52 PM -0700 4/26/10, PaulaL wrote: > I belong to the Small House Society list & would be interested in the co-housing as a possibility. A friend of mine and & have been having discussions quite a bit over the last 6 months or so about small houses and similar possibilities. It also seems a natural combination to me as well. I find people who consider living with less space in a more simple fashion are much more open to cohousing than cohousing people are willing to consider scaling back. Where have you and your friend considered locating your project? In Sacramento, where I live, many, many old Victorians have been restored. What interests me more are the craftsmen bungalows that are restored to their original glory. :-) Marganne -- 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-housing+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/low-cost-community-housing?hl=en.