Cohousing as a Lifestyle Choice
Edward J. Dodson
[An unpublished essay written December 1999]
A peculiarly northern European model of community is gradually coming
to the United States, where many traditional communities have
disappeared and people are increasingly isolated from one another.
People eager to be less private in their lifestyle than the typical
suburban bedroom subdivision permits are coming to together to design
intentional communities for themselves. The planning process may
require several years before construction actually begins; however, in
the end, what arises is the creation of a community people find far
more enjoyable than where they are coming from.
The essential features of communities characterized by cohousing
are as follows:
- Small scale developments with homes privately-owned (some
detached, some attached), common areas of open space and community
center, designed by the future residents in cooperation with
architects and developers.
- Designs tend to maximiize energy efficiency and minimize
materials use, keep automobiles at the periphery.
- Privately-owned homes may or may not include such amenities as
laundry facilities that can be efficiently shared.
- There may or may not be participatory enterprises associated
with the community. For example, some communities may set aside
land for organic gardening.
- Ownership of the common areas and facilities may take the form
of a PUD, condominium or cooperative.
- After about a decade of experience, there appears to be a
strong resale market when homes become available, and many
communities have a waiting list of people interested in making
purchases.
- Cohousing communities generally seek to promote diversity in
ethnicity, age groups, family size, etc., which is considered as
an important part of what constitutes "community."
Data provided by the California firm, The CoHousing Company, lists
nearly forty cohousing communities already in existence, with some 850
households involved. More than thirty additional communities are in
the planning and/or development phase. Although these communities are
appearing in many states, they are most prevalent in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont and Washington
state. A recently-formed National Board of The Cohousing Network held
a conference last year in Bucks County, Pennsylvania that attracted
over one hundred participants. The 1999 conference occurred in October
in Amherst, Massachusetts. This organization produces a quarterly
journal, CoHousing.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY DESIGNED IN?
At the scale of development that has occurred to this point, the
element of housing affordability is addressed as part of the desire
for diversity. As a result, some homes are more modest than others,
some are attached and some are detached. However, from the information
I have read there does not appear to be any contractual restrictions
on resale designed to specifically preserve affordability. Presumably,
first time homebuyers could access down payment and closing cost
assistance funds, if needed, offered by the municipality or county in
which the development is located. This would obligate the recipients
to whatever resale restrictions might be attached to the assistance
program. Certainly, there is no inherent reason why
cohousing cannot be developed by not-for-profit community
development organizations with provisions to ensure long-term
affordability. There is not enough information on the respective
developments under way to know whether some are, in fact, already
coming on stream
What cohousing offers is a legitimate alternative community
structure for persons who want greater interaction with neighbors and
a physical design that is more harmonious with the natural
environment. The small scale nature of these intentional communities
requires that residents travel elsewhere to employment centers -- at
least for the present. There is no inherent reason why such
developments cannot be clustered near places of employment (where land
prices are not too high for this type of low-rise residential
development or where zoning restrictions prevent such mixed-use
development schemes). There does not seem to be demand for this type
of development in urban areas, although the assemblage of a large
enough parcel of land could make this an attractive alternative in
older close-in suburban areas convenient to mass transportation and
now dominated by inefficient, large, single-family dwellings.
SUMMARY
Cohousing is viable, has a growing demand and considerable
existing institutional and development industry support. There may be
specific title insurance and other legal issues that require financial
institutions to adopt specific criteria for eligibility; however,
these should be very easy to address given our experience with
community land trust structures, cooperatives and condominiums. For
the financial services industry, the one challenge is supporting
housing values when comparable sales are not available. The approach
that works best is to treat the new community as a distinct market and
use evidence of demand and willingness of prospective owners to incur
the full costs of site acquisition and construction as the basis for
determining how much financing is adequately collateralized. Another
way to address risk is to require a strong level of borrower
creditworthiness.
|
