« What’s it Like in Crown Heights? Garden of the Day: A Decade in Coming »
August 15, 2008
Brooklyn Co-Housing Moving Closer to Reality?

Co-ops, until the recent condo building boom, were once a dominant form of housing here in New York, but many found they weren't actually that, you know, cooperative. So a Brooklyn couple is trying to bring another form of housing to the borough, a Danish model of communal living called co-housing. So says Sarah Ryley in the Real Deal. Individuals own their own units in co-housing, like co-ops, but there are shared communal spaces, usually including kitchens and dining areas where residents can eat together. Most American co-housing communities are in rural areas, but in February Alex Marshall incorporated Brooklyn Cohousing LLC. He's got about 25 interested households, and they're looking for property between $15 and $35 million for the group. Is Brooklyn ready for such communal living, and will the market provide?
Living Closely With Neighbors [The Real Deal]
Co-housing Sketch. Photo by matthewsargent.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5889
Comments
I'd love to know more about this- sounds very interesting. Kinda the 60's meets Ikea. still, I like the idea. Not to say I would want to live in such a situation now but actually I might consider it in the right time and place (for me). It works for artist colonies.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 15, 2008 10:10 AM
Wow.
Posted by: KHuebbe at August 15, 2008 10:17 AM
Oh please, Danish communes, spare us.
Sounds a lot like the polygamist Mormon communitites in Utah and Texas.
Sharing a kitchen with other families?
Yeah, that would really work in Brooklyn.
between the vegans, the koshers, the glutten-adverse and the plain eccentric, I see little harmony.
Americans find it had enough to share a home with one person.
This is a recipe for a spike in the boro's homocide rate.
Posted by: sam at August 15, 2008 10:20 AM
All I want to know is who will wash all those dishes? Even with a dishwashing machine someone still has to leoad it, lol.
Good for them. Not an idea suited to me, but if it works for them, why not.
Posted by: Guvna at August 15, 2008 10:28 AM
sam- Obviously it's an idea that works for a lot of people - in Denmark and here seeing as he has 25 families interested. It may not be for you but why do you resent if it works for others?
Posted by: bxgrl at August 15, 2008 10:34 AM
Hey, if this is your kind of thing--cool. If there's anywhere where this can work, it should be NYC. More power to 'em and blah, blah, blah.
That said, there would be NO WAY ON THIS PLANET that I would share a kitchen with my neighbors (who are wonderful people, but still). I have enough trouble getting my partner to pick up after himself.
Posted by: BrooklynButler at August 15, 2008 10:35 AM
The kitchen is not my room of choice. If I could foist off cooking and dishwashing on someone else I would but I've learned that tiny cat paws cannot hold dishes and the cuisine was limited to little pointy-nosed raw animals so I preserver.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 15, 2008 10:39 AM
"CO-Housing?"
Yeah, I did that, but it was called "living in the college dorms" in my day.
Posted by: Mamacita at August 15, 2008 10:46 AM
I don't think the idea of communal living is to "foist" chores on your cult-partners. That will get you voted off the danish cart.
Scandinavian culture is so alien to anything in Brooklyn.
It just doesn't go.
I do love the idea of people living in styrofoam cubes held up by giant nails.
Posted by: sam at August 15, 2008 10:46 AM
my understanding of this kind of living is that everyone has their own kitchen, in their own unit, and can also choose to use and share the communal spaces. that combination of private and shared space is what, to me, makes this a workable idea. seems like it could be a really great lifestyle.
Posted by: 11216 at August 15, 2008 10:52 AM
I can see it working with like-minded groups of people, such as artists, students, single mothers, religious groups, etc. It would be a leg up on the ownership ladder, and also could save money by pooling resources, anything from food to daycare to laundry and recreational facilities.
Of course, you'd have to have rules up the wazoo, enforcement abiities written in, and most of all, a pretty harmonious group of people to begin with. It won't fly with everyone, but it's a viable alternative.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 15, 2008 10:53 AM
You folks slay me.
Most of you don't even like to share a roof with other families in an apartment building!
You prefer private houses.
And you are talking about communal living with artists???
I could not think of a worse hell.
except maybe artists and musicians.
Posted by: sam at August 15, 2008 11:03 AM
They had these growing up in the seventies in W. Philly. They were called "life centers," and I was very grateful not to be raised in one. From my personal observations however, there was far too much talk about "feelings" and not a ton of housework. Nothing like seeing chore charts for 40-year olds.
Posted by: Heather at August 15, 2008 11:03 AM
so do you think the styrofoam and nail idea will catch on, sam? I thought it looked very cool, but then again, doesn't Frank Gehry claim to crumple up paper and design the building based on that? Adjust the size of the foam cells for different rooms.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 15, 2008 11:03 AM
I think the NY housing code requires separate kitchens in each unit. Its ok in countries where people obey the rules(Danes even ride their bikes in the direction of Traffic and stop for red lights..and don't jay walk)
Posted by: smeyer418 at August 15, 2008 11:04 AM
I lived at a commune on Staten Island (Ganas, the one in the news recently because of a shooting) and it was as close to this model as I've seen in the United States. It's a great idea in theory, but the problem with these places is that the weak link in the chain always ends up causing problems for everyone else.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at August 15, 2008 11:04 AM
Can we share bedrooms, too?
Cuz I've got the hots for my neighbors wife.
This will NEVER fly.
Never say never?
I just did.
Posted by: Prodigal_Son at August 15, 2008 11:08 AM
Well, at least the cult...er commune...will have plenty of sugar cubes. Sweet model.
Posted by: Clinton Hillster at August 15, 2008 11:09 AM
Sam-
"I do love the idea of people living in styrofoam cubes held up by giant nails."
So do 2/3rds of the architects and developers in Brooklyn.
Posted by: Prodigal_Son at August 15, 2008 11:10 AM
I think we're just being open to new ideas. this seems like a good time for that. And actually this idea is not all that new.
And didn't you say last year, "Another very nice, middle-class family home available only to the super rich.
Sigh...
Brooklyn is screwed up."?
It's not a lifestyle for you- we get that. But that doesn't mean it's not for everyone. And no, I'm not moving in- but to be honest, if the right place came along and it was he right time, I really might. As long as I have my own living/work space. I love being around other artists- its a creative, funny, over the top kind of atmosphere that sends me home all revved up to do more work.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 15, 2008 11:10 AM
Worst. Idea. Ever.
Posted by: lechacal at August 15, 2008 11:14 AM
Co-Housing is not communes, nor cults. And what? there are no rules in coops or condos? Who hasn't heard about the co-op boards from hell?
good USA Today articles:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-28-communes_N.htm
Posted by: bxgrl at August 15, 2008 11:15 AM
I'm picturing a refrigerator divided up into 8 shelves with little labels on all the tupperwares.
Oh, the arguments that would follow...
" WHO ATE -MY- VEGAN TOFU SCRAMBLE? "
" NO PORK ALLOWED IN -MY- FRIDGE!!! "
etc etc
Posted by: Prodigal_Son at August 15, 2008 11:16 AM
Well, my feeling is the people who are most against it are the people most likely to make it a failure so the obvious solution is don't move into one. All fixed.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 15, 2008 11:17 AM
bxgirl.
Its not the rules that are a turn off. Its sharing a fricken kitchen and dining area!
I am fastidiously clean, organized and also a top notch cook/chef. I eat meat, fish, dairy, spicy, ethnic and have an adventurous larder to say the least. Will everyone else be the same?
No way.
Posted by: Prodigal_Son at August 15, 2008 11:18 AM
Based on Blog postings - people in Brooklyn are irritated by and judgmental about virtually everything 'other people' do; So I really do not see this working at all. Nor would I have any interest in such an arrangement - personally when I come home the last thing I'd want to deal with is the politics over who is using the kitchen.
Shahn wasnt Ganas also an 'open sex' kind of community? I think that is a bit different then as an alternative to Co-Op and Condo ownership structure.
Posted by: fsrg at August 15, 2008 11:20 AM
Lisa, I may be nitpicking here, but in co-ops you don't own your own unit, you own shares in the corporation that owns the entire building.
Posted by: greenwood at August 15, 2008 11:23 AM
Prodigal Son, so- don't move there. No one's forcing you.
What's the big deal if other people want to live in co-housing? Does everyone have to be the same? And I believe someone said by NYC code, each living unit has to have a kitchen (cannot say if that's accurate or not). In which case you wouldn't be forced to use the communal areas. And we don't even know how the kitchens would actually be set up, so for all we know each family may have its own fridge or whatever.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 15, 2008 11:25 AM
I visited a communal living "compound," I guess you'd call it, in New Mexico several years ago (friends of a friend started it). The folks who lived there were like-minded in many ways (progressive, community minded, eco-focused) but also surprisingly diverse -- some had kids (but not all) and those kids got on the bus and went to school each day, some worked in the garden, others commuted to offices, some were vegetarian, but not all. They were all really normal, and I say that because I kinda was expecting some kind of spouse-swapping nudist vegan homeschooling cult. Mostly, they were a bunch of happy, healthy, cheerful people who like living in community and were devoted to a "green" lifestyle (before the term was thrown around so easily). So I think that these places self-select. No one is forcing you to live there (I'm looking at you, Sam) and people who WOULD choose to live in such an arrangement tend to be the kind of people who not only can make it work, but who want to.
Posted by: I_haz_TWO_toilets at August 15, 2008 11:26 AM
No. Ganas is not an open sex community. There was a group of 10 people in the community that were involved in a type of group monogamy, but the other 90 people who lived there when I did were not involved in that in any way. What is similar to this plan is that everyone has their own private living space, and there are group spaces for living and dining. There are a number of different living rooms in different houses that can be used by anyone at any time, and refrigerators and kitchens in each house that are shared. There are also three large communal meals a day in the largest house.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at August 15, 2008 11:30 AM
OK I wish to thank the former resident of the Staten island commune for proving my point about a spike in the homicide rate. And I think the most sensible thing written was that Brooklynintes like to take issue with anything anyone else does. Lets face it, we go ape shit over a menu that is left on the stoop.
Unless we are heavily medicated, we do not want to see other people's shit in our fridge when we get home.
Bottom line: this could be fun for a young starving artist for about ten days, after which they can go hang out at their parents' villa on Oahu.
For normal, middle-aged american people who like artists and musicians but who do not wish to share tupperware with them, I say, good luck, don't forget the bulletproof vest.
Posted by: sam at August 15, 2008 11:40 AM
I have no interest in dealing with anyone's morning grumpiness and ass-scratching (other than spouse and children - they are exempt).
This might be the worst thing to come out of Europe since Ace of Base.
Posted by: lechacal at August 15, 2008 11:40 AM
I attended one of their meetings and they seem down to earth, neither hippie nor preachy. I can confirm that each unit will have its own kitchen, bathroom, etc.
I got interested in the cohousing movement because it's a great place to raise kids. You have both privacy and community. And access to great common space including courtyards, common hall, a restaurant-scale kitchen for special events (yes, with commercial dishwasher), workshops, bike racks, etc. Most of these communities are also very green.
Each unit is completely stand-alone but architecturally oriented to facilitate interaction with your neighbors (e.g. active spaces, such as kitchens, are oriented toward the courtyard.)
I suppose it's heaven or hell depending on whether you like your neighbors (as are most communities...) This group seems diverse and laid back with a lot of interesting members.
Posted by: Ainslie at August 15, 2008 11:55 AM
"open sex", "group monogomy" - whatever it is and no matter how many people are participating - you are talking about something far different then simply a condo/co-op with shared kitchen space and rec rooms.
On a different note - when is Broken Angel going to be finished?
Posted by: fsrg at August 15, 2008 11:56 AM
So if you have your own kitchen and bath and individual ownership of the unit - how is this different than any other new condo development with community rooms, gyms, lounges, pools, libraries, etc.....
Posted by: fsrg at August 15, 2008 11:58 AM
Alright, maybe I'll give it a try. But I don't want to share a kitchen with bxgirl, she seems like a slacker and I'm allergic to cats.
Posted by: sam at August 15, 2008 12:04 PM
fsrq: "So if you have your own kitchen and bath and individual ownership of the unit - how is this different than any other new condo development with community rooms, gyms, lounges, pools, libraries, etc....."
You seriously don't see a difference? Fer real?
OK, heres the answer.
In a 24 hour period, you MUST use a bathroom and you MUST use a kitchen, provided you have regular toilet habits and eat food.
In a 24 hour period, you CHOOSE to visit " community rooms, gyms, lounges, pools, libraries, etc....."
I can enjoy my own kitchen and bathroom and if I WANT TO, can visit a shared room in my condo development.
See the diff? Its huge.
Posted by: Prodigal_Son at August 15, 2008 12:06 PM
Good fences make good neighbors. Or as my boyfriend's father once declared: "Don't live with anyone you ain't screwin', they'll just piss you off." Ah, the poetry of Apalachia...
Posted by: stoep2conquer at August 15, 2008 12:09 PM
Such fun reading this! Most of you guys have NO idea what you're talking about, with exceptions like Ainslie and others.
Co-housing is a meant to be a group living situation, which shares certain tasks and areas. No more and no less. It's more like having a mess hall, common gardens, maybe a library/reading room, an activity room (table tennis, anyone?) all maintained and staffed by your neighbors (and you, all have to do some work.) No one is going to fill your personal fridge with their stuff.
You don't have to utilize any of the commons, you can come home, slam the door and sulk when you're feeling anti-social.
It's obviously the opposite of the me-first mentality so prevalent here. So I doubt many of you will be checking this out, but why the vitriol?
Posted by: cmu at August 15, 2008 12:17 PM
Ainslie,
This idea is a different packaging of a New Urbanist idea that as population grows, we return to living in small, easily managed villages, where you do indeed have your own house, but that you lean on your community for resources.
The key difference here is that instead of saying hello to neighbors as you dust off your front step, you are dealing with a more diverse group of people in a time when there is less emphasis put on formal communication (parlimentary procedure, as an example.) So, there are more issues to discuss, less time in which to do it, and less respect for the person holding the floor in a public setting.
Posted by: stoep2conquer at August 15, 2008 12:21 PM
why the vitriol?
cuz we're from Brooklyn. duh!
this ain't Copenhagen-daz.
Posted by: sam at August 15, 2008 12:22 PM
sam- in the kitchen I confess. slacker. On the upside you're allergic to cats so we won't have to share but I promise to call 911 while you're having your allergic attack. The cat will watch over you until the ambulance comes :-)
Posted by: bxgrl at August 15, 2008 12:25 PM
bxgirl, thank you, that is very thoughtful.
However I am just allergic, I do not go into anaphylactic shock. I will sneeze all over the place though. best to put little raincoats on the kitties if they are near me.
Posted by: sam at August 15, 2008 12:33 PM
Communal living with artists never works out - its the dirty dishes problem.
Posted by: dittoburg at August 15, 2008 12:43 PM
For one thing, in most co-housing schemes, everyone has their own kitchen. The common kitchen and dining room is for events. You don't have to share if you don't want to.
Posted by: serpentor at August 15, 2008 12:48 PM
I'm just waiting to see whether they can come up with some halfway affordable property.
Posted by: serpentor at August 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Prodigal Son - please read Analise post -
" I can confirm that each unit will have its own kitchen, bathroom, etc.....And access to great common space including courtyards, common hall, a restaurant-scale kitchen for special events (yes, with commercial dishwasher), workshops, bike racks, etc"
So yes - how is this different then a Condo that has (or could have) a common hall, common kitchen for special events etc......
"community rooms" (for many purposes) are all the rage in new condos -
Posted by: fsrg at August 15, 2008 12:53 PM
sam- my cats choose to be nekkid. I cannot infringe upon my brothers and sisters in fur to change their freely made choices. I guess I will have to keep them away from you. In return I expect you to clean up the kitchen (after cooking).
Posted by: bxgrl at August 15, 2008 1:27 PM
I live in Ulster County (2 hours north of NYC). There is a 10-year-old cohousing community (16 households) in Saugerties, and one in the planning stages in Rosendale. I have been the listing real estate agent for resales of two of the Saugerties cohousing houses, so I can tell you how the system works.
Use of the common facilities is completely optional. There are meals (in this case, not vegetarian) offered a few times a week, which members can avail themselves of or not. The kitchen is cleaned very well after each meal by teams of neighbors who sign up for that duty. Otherwise, the common house has laundry facilities (for those who prefer not to have laundry in their own houses -- but again, not required), a fun rec area where the kids hang out on rainy days, or where adults have fitness classes or other meetings. It's also available for birthday parties and other gatherings. There's a "library" room with books and a piano available, as well.
Gardens on the property are available for members to use to grow flowers or food. Garden equipment is stored in a common shed. If you need a wheelbarrow or a shovel, for instance, you just take it and return it when you're done.
One drawback (in my opinion) is meetings -- there are a lot of them, as decisions about finances, maintenance, expansion, new members, etc., are made by consensus. However, I know at least a couple of members who get sick of the meetings and opt out for many of the less crucial ones. They aren't penalized, and they try to do their share of community work in other ways.
Interestingly, a few people in the Saugerties cohousing community came upstate from Brooklyn. I've observed that there also seems to be something of a Quaker orientation to the members of the community (though the community includes Jewish members and those of other religious persuasions as well).
Finally, both the transactions I was involved in, which took place late this spring, were multiple offer situations, which was surprising to me. The rest of the market was moribund, but cohousing was holding up very, very well. I guess the people who want this lifestyle really want it, even if they have to pay a premium for it.
Posted by: kingston at August 15, 2008 2:09 PM
I'm sorry but this all sounds like new age NONSENSE - unless these 'communities' have some sort of political/social agenda then they are simply CONDOS by another name.
Lets look at the Saugurties "Co-housing" - they have a community kitchen, 'rec area', library room and a garden - all for residents optional use. And the residents own their individual units.
Okay so now lets compare it to 2 Condos that advertise here:
Toren has a community Library, pool, roof deck, and fitness center - all for residents optional use.And the residents own their individual units.
80 Metropolitan has a community Zen Garden, fitness room, yoga room, pool and media room with a KITCHENETTE - all for residents optional use. And the residents own their own individual units.
Sorry seems like Co-housing sounds like a Condo for people who don't want to say they live in a Condo - based on that however, I predict that they will be very popular in Brooklyn
Posted by: fsrg at August 15, 2008 2:40 PM
I always find the comments sections for articles like this rather amusing. People who simply have no idea what they are talking about, and who would never be interested in living cooperatively anyway, end up dominating the conversation. And really only do it so that they can see their own words in pixels. (the cyber equivalent of hearing the sound of their own voices)
Yes... we get it... you don't want to share a frikkin' kitchen with someone else. You don't have to, and in fact, you're not invited. Please, stay in your isolated apartment and your isolated life, and leave the few of us who want to at least TRY cooperating with the other humans alone. You can do anything you want at any time you want without having to ask for permission or explaining your actions to anyone else. Good for you! Go for it. We wish you all the best. Enjoy...
I've lived in two "intentional communities" and I can say that they are not for everyone. I lived for 4 years at Ganas, mentioned elsewhere in the comments here, and for 4 years in the Kerista community in San Francisco. That particular community WAS the epitome of the classic "hippie commune" and I wouldn't trade my time and experience there for anybody's one-bedroom upper east side walk-up. I've visited, known people from, read about and discussed dozens of other communities around the world, and it is actually a lifestyle on the rise at this point in time. Again, it's not for everybody, and the haters are perfectly welcome to keep to themselves.
Co-housing, like what this article discusses, is nowhere near as intense as living in a "commune" or some other forms of cooperative living. Co-housing, like any other lifestyle, is not for everybody. How many times does that need to be said? I know that the detractors understand this, but again, their purpose for making comments about an article like this one is simply to see their own words and get some kind of reaction. People with a need to get attention like this tend to not do well in community.
We live in a world wracked by violence, warming up as we burn what's left of the fossil fuels available, polluted by the packaging that we discard from the cheap plastic crap that we don't really need anyway, and overpopulated by billions of people, most of who would love nothing more than to live MY lower middle class lifestyle. Something's gonna give, and it's gonna give way REAL soon.
People who are open to and able to live with and cooperate with other humans may actually have a place to thrive in the next generation. All the isolated "individualists" who are more concerned with not having a spot of mustard on the kitchen counter than they are with actually connecting with real, live, breathing human beings may find it increasingly difficult to thrive on this sweet little planet of ours once the shit really hits the fan. Unless they are fabulously wealthy. But then I suspect that those types aren't too concerned about the future anyway. It's more fun to spend one's time being snarky on internet discussion forums than it is to actually try and do something positive and useful.
Right?
Posted by: pss11211 at August 15, 2008 3:02 PM
So in essence, fsrq, this is really more like created community (for lack of a better term on my part)rather than a true commune?
Posted by: bxgrl at August 15, 2008 4:01 PM
It's also a matter of intent. You buy into a condo/co-op because you want a place to live and you hope you get along with your co-owners. It's your space that's primary, the common amenities a plus.
A co-house is intentionally setup by a group of like-minded persons who want more social interaction than casual meetings in the lobby, the pool or at board meetings. And there's a difference between access to a kitchen and regularly scheduled meals. Whether this intention will maintain after a few turn-overs is the $64 question.
Also, large co-ops/condos with amenities are not all that common outside NY area, unless they're in resorts. Co-housing started as a suburban answer to isolated living.
Posted by: cmu at August 15, 2008 4:13 PM
I don't play well with others.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at August 15, 2008 4:16 PM
"A co-house is intentionally setup by a group of like-minded persons who want more social interaction than casual meetings in the lobby, the pool or at board meetings"
I thought one of the great benefits of living in an urban environment is to NOT live in a community simply made up of like-minded persons????????
Posted by: fsrg at August 15, 2008 4:52 PM
Well, I can see a difference between the urban environment with its diversity (block, 'hood, boro, city) being a positive, and ones immediate living space, so don't see a paradox there. And the only reason for the like-mindedness is that there are probably different types of rules in a cohouse than in a condo, which may work better if the people were say, artists, or environmentally active.
Posted by: cmu at August 15, 2008 5:22 PM
So wait, is co-housing just a poor man's condo? where you get all the services but instead of paying out of pocket for them you work 3 hours a week?
Posted by: werner at August 15, 2008 6:11 PM
to me, a danish commune consists of like-minded people bound together by their love for breakfast pastry. that is a workable concept. the labor can be shared for making those cinamon rolls and cherry streudel, and omigod, the cheese and apple turnovers. beam me up.
Posted by: Gary Cooper at August 15, 2008 8:06 PM
When we used to visit Pendle Hill, one thing I noticed, even at age ten, was how none of the adults seemed to have jobs. Are there jobs in Saguerties? What do those people... do?
Okay, yeah, I am biased. At least unless we decide to enroll our little snowflake in Brooklyn Friends... in which case I will have to re-connect with my hippie roots.
One thing though: I'd be curious to see what rent-stabilized building gets gutted to realize this urbran "utopia" -- and what happens to the tenants.
I prefer my actual community, which is full of people that I have nothing in common with to some kind of idealized vision, where, presumably, we all have to be ecologically correct all the time. Unless of course, these turn out to be the real estate deals of the century... but, you know, I sincerely doubt that.
Posted by: Heather at August 15, 2008 8:09 PM
Thank you, Polemicist. I appreciate that.
Issues of co-housing / cooperative living come up every once in a while in the mainstream media. Whenever there is a forum for people to comment on whatever the article is about, that forum is ALWAYS dominated by those people who are simply unwilling to clean up someone else's cereal bowl. (I'm eating cereal this very minute, and I can put my own bowl in the dishwasher! If I don't, and someone complains, it's not the end of the world.)
It amazes me how much energy individuals like that are willing to spend knocking a perfectly valid lifestyle option, without actually investigating what it may have to offer, or knowing full well that they are simply not interested. Why do they insist on behaving this way? Is it fear of the unknown or the "other"? Is it a bad experience in the past with the roommate from hell? Most likely, it's because people like that ARE the roommate from hell, and they know that they would constantly be getting feedback for their behavior if they were in a communal situation.
Co-housing, cooperative and communal living situations work best when there is a Social Contract, one that everyone involved can agree upon. It could be as simple as "Everyone must wash their own dishes," or as complex as whatever some of the various religious communities have in place. A lot of people are reluctant to agree to a social contract, because they believe that it may limit their options, or that they may actually be held accountable for their actions.
This country was formed with a contract, which is now being eviscerated by people who don't feel like playing by the rules. How's that working out? I would be willing to wager that some of the same people who would complain the loudest about the possibility of having to wash someone else's dishes, are also some of the same who complain the loudest about the way the Constitution is being violated by the criminal political class. I can't prove this, but I would still bet on it!
What are we going to do in the near future? Are we going to wait for everyone in China and India to have their own automobile, dishwasher, washer/dryer and lawnmower, all powered by fossil fuels, before we decided to retool something, ANYTHING to keep our pretty little world livable? Personally, I think everybody on the planet should have and deserves access to an automobile, dishwasher, washer/dryer and lawnmower, but do we REALLY each need to OWN one that we keep to ourselves? Maybe YOU do, but I don't. Increasing numbers of other people in our society are realizing that they don't either, and can share. And, at a time when the economy is shaky at best, maybe it's time to start thinking like that a little more.
Something's gonna give, and I don't mind giving a little of myself to help ensure that when that something does give, the pain is as minimal as possible. The people who aren't willing to give a little of themselves... don't have to! They may, however, find their lives to be a bit empty and lonely and hopefully not too difficult when our civilization goes through its next upheaval. It's happening as we speak, and it's happening largely as a result of the isolation created by the "manufactured needs" of the marketplace. Big Capitalism is a great way to distribute goods and services, but it makes for a lousy state religion. Big Capitalism wants us each to have our own automobile, dishwasher, washer/dryer and lawnmower, but we don't have to heed its siren call for more, more, more!
If we don't want to...
Posted by: pss11211 at August 16, 2008 12:24 PM
Maybe if the idea kicks off they will open a second co-housing building for those of us who don't want to live with the pompous 25-year olds? And then perhaps also one for people who like to pay other people to wash their dishes?
What depresses me the most about the new locovore liberalism is that it's not liberal in any sense of the word. Anyone who doesn't fit in with the model is not worthy of being included. Social change? Only for the effete few. And then there's the handy, "blame capitalism." You know, while you're looking for a building to BUY... in one of the most expensive cities in the world... and, why are you here again and what do you do for a living?
If I close my eyes I'm back in my living room and twelve again, listening to Sunshine, the man who refused to wear shoes, pontificate about how "they" just don't want the peoples to be free. As I recall, thanks to his main line family, Sunshine himself was extremely free.
Posted by: Heather at August 16, 2008 12:58 PM
Heather:
pss11211 does use some common post-structuralist terminology (I do hate the term "other") but at least doesn't bring up anything related to identity politics, something that happens all to frequently on this site (i.e. FUREE). I would not classify co-housing as liberal, at least in the same vein as the policies typically advocated by the democratic party and their supporters.
While democrats failed miserably with their many destructive and wasteful social programs, so too have republicans failed with a false capitalist system predicated on government graft and state sponsored usury. Both parties, by advocating national and international solutions to what should be local problems, will be unable to cope with the numerous crises that will result from increasing resource scarcity in coming years.
Co-housing represents a small step towards people attempting to solve problems for themselves in their own way. It has nothing to do with "social change", inclusion or exclusion.
Co-housing is not a project "by" certain people "for" others. It is a project by specific people for themselves and no one else. If you want to develop an age restricted co-housing facility, you can do that - but you'll have to keep to 55+ to comply with fair housing regulations.
The accusation of pompousness also is very much reflective of the flaw of individualism in our modern state. People do not simply want the right to pursue their own destiny, they want the approval of society at large. I see no reason why you wold consider such a benign project such a threat to your personal ego.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 16, 2008 2:26 PM
Also Heather, I totally missed your comment about rent stabilized tenants. How on earth is that at all relevant to this discussion?
Posted by: Polemicist at August 16, 2008 2:30 PM
Where else are you going to find a suitable dwelling, Polemicist, if not a large apartment complex that will have rent-stabilized tenants? This is New York. Any building large and cheap enough is going to already have people living in it. What happens to them? What if they don't "share" your mentality?
"'Co-housing' is not a project 'by' certain people 'for' others. It is a project by specific people for themselves and no one else."
And that's the problem with it. I realize that you, Polemicist, who think half the working class population of New York city are leeches on society, aren't going to get this, but creating a separatist utopia isn't going to solve anyone's problems. It's just another way to make yourself feel special. Nor is fragmenting said society into a precious little series of islands filled with like-minded people. That is no different than gated communities and condo associations in the suburbs, the kind you probably roll your eyes at and sneer.
Something more productive to do, (were you actually delusional enough to think that any of this makes a difference), would be to find commonality with the neighbors you have now. But, oh, right. They just don't understand your specialness.
Posted by: Heather at August 16, 2008 3:18 PM
Heather, you obviously don't follow real estate development in this city or read my posts. Rent stabilized buildings always make poor redevelopment properties. The costs are simply enormous. While co-op conversions exist, it is purely because the landlord just doesn't want to deal with the hassle and wants to liquidate his position with the best possible return. The co-housing people are not looking to buy a building and convert it. If you read about it, you'd know this. They are interested in building something from the ground up that accommodates their personal desires. This is not going to be possible with some ancient building.
The problem with large scale real estate development is it is oriented towards the most probable buyer - this is why new product is essentially generic. Co-housing is nothing more than prospective buyers operating as a developer and building what THEY want. You know all those unique, interesting, and whimsical townhouses in this city? They were built by people with the same motivations.
In any event, your feelings on this matter are completely irrational and the level of emotion you exude in your writing borders on the psychotic. Your writings honestly sound like something from Mao during the cultural revolution. Very scary.
I really can't possibly refute anything you have written as it is completely baseless. You have done nothing more than project your personal, paranoid biases onto something of which you know absolutely nothing.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 16, 2008 3:37 PM
"Blame Capitalism"?
Both of the communities that I've lived in functioned very well within Capitalism, thank you very much! Extremely well! In fact, in Kerista, (where we joked that we were a "cult of accountants") one of our many mottoes was that we "Made Money Like Capitalists and Spent It Like Socialists." Got a problem with that? If so, then don't participate.
However, I don't believe that Free-Market Global Capitalism is in that great shape right now. Do you? Do you like the idea of "socializing the risk and privatizing the profits"? I don't. I think the only time companies that fail should be bailed out by MY taxpayer dollars is if those companies are then nationalized. Now there's a novel idea! Or are you comfortable with the kleptocracy the way it is?
I liked this line: "Co-housing represents a small step towards people attempting to solve problems for themselves in their own way." I don't understand why this concept is so difficult and so foreign. It's a choice, and has very little to do with who does the dishes.
And finally... "why are you here again (in one of the most expensive cities in the world) and what do you do for a living?"
I'm here because it's interesting. New York is my home and I love it. Does that mean that I have to live the way everyone else here does? I don't have to be ironic or cynical all the time, do I? I don't have to aspire to simply accumulating as much personal wealth as possible, right?
And what do I do for a living? Well, right now I'm sitting in a real estate office, and I'm a licensed salesperson. (it's slow these days) I got into this industry because I know a lot of my neighbors, am very familiar with my neighborhood, and wanted to try to find the formula or formulas for using a real estate approach to building small intentional communities. Those formulas (and there are several) are just within my reach, and Brooklyn Co-Housing is an inspiration.
p.s. - I love the idea of a community for people who like to pay other people to wash their dishes. I think that's a great idea, and would probably do quite well in the marketplace! :-)
Posted by: pss11211 at August 16, 2008 3:54 PM
pss11211- as sam will tell you I would be one of the first to sign up for the prepaid dishwasher as I am a slacker in the kitchen. (Also the prepaid cook if one is available). And I so rarely agree with Polemicist I broke out in a rash as I am typing that on this subject I agree with him.
heather wrote:"creating a separatist utopia isn't going to solve anyone's problems. It's just another way to make yourself feel special. Nor is fragmenting said society into a precious little series of islands filled with like-minded people. That is no different than gated communities and condo associations in the suburbs"
They are very different because gated communities and condo associations are exclusionary groups based on a circle the wagons approach to living. You have to have a certain level of assets and then they are all about protecting their stuff, and protecting their neighbors stuff- as long as it is in their self-interest. My parents lived in one in Florida- the concept was "keep everyone else out." At some level they are based on fear (IMHO) and that determines their rules and regulations. And let me just say for the record, I'm not passing judgment on that. I don't like the idea of gated communities but if that's how someone wants to live, it's their right.
By contrast co-housing and communes (as I see it) are based on people looking for practical solutions to sharing resources and living a cleaner, more ecologically sound life. That's not just a some pie in the sky goal, it's attempting to deal with a big big issue that too many of us refuse to consider. Utopias are impractical communities based on people living according to certain rigid ideals (determined in some vague manner) that will often conflict with the realities of life- none of the communities mentioned seem that way.
Based on what those who have experience with communes have said, living in a commune is about choices in lifestyle, not elitism, not selfishness. And what's so bad about living among like minded people who want a cleaner, healthier and more social planet? It helps everyone- even those who don't participate. If you live in a gated community, any benefit is strictly and jealously guarded for those who live there.
"we "Made Money Like Capitalists and Spent It Like Socialists." Got a problem with that? If so, then don't participate.
However, I don't believe that Free-Market Global Capitalism is in that great shape right now. Do you? Do you like the idea of "socializing the risk and privatizing the profits"? I don't."
Glad you said that- although you might get your head bitten off here. I agree with you on this- although most people still react to the buzzwords of "capitalism" and "socialism" as though Stalin was at the gates. Your version of socialism certainly ain't "my father's socialism."
Posted by: bxgrl at August 16, 2008 4:47 PM
pss11211
The typical Brownstoner poster generally is actually quite conservative in most regards, i.e. they prefer things to remain as they are. There is little in the way of ideology, simply a resistance to change - no matter what the form.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 16, 2008 5:05 PM
"They are very different because gated communities and condo associations are exclusionary groups based on a circle the wagons approach to living. You have to have a certain level of assets and then they are all about protecting their stuff, and protecting their neighbors stuff- as long as it is in their self-interest."
I'm not seeing a difference between that and the co-housing model described in the Real Deal article, frankly. Although I am very amused that Mr. Polemicist Roarke thinks I'm Chairman Heather.
And, as I alluded to in my earlier posts, I do actually have some personal experience with co-housing. And I freely admit, that has given me a bias... against it. I'm just trying to tell you why, in my own experience, the communal living has some issues.
As a way to market -- ahem, transform a failed condo project? Sure, sounds great. More power to you. It's just when the rhetoric gets full of phrases about "like-minded people" and so on, that I get leery. Also, reaching decisions by consensus? I laugh. I've seen this not work. A lot. You may think you're like-minded, until you realize that your perfectly nice neighbor down the hall thinks that seventh generation cleaning products are actually just a marketing scam and the only real way to clean things is with distilled white vinegar. That you distill yourself. And why can't the association make a still for that purpose? Don't you all want to get along?
And so on.
Something interesting historically that might be worth looking at are the co-op developments on the LES -- Amalgamated and so on. They have their issues, but they're still run pretty successfully in the spirit of this model on a large scale. (I think.)
Posted by: Heather at August 16, 2008 5:23 PM
Heather- my sister and her family have lived in Amalgamated for years. I was just up there yesterday. People really love living there, the grounds are well kept and families like it so well that several generations often stay. Her in-laws live there, her husband grew up there and their kids want to live in their own apartments in Amalgamated. Sure there are issues (mys sister used to be on the board so I heard an earful) but by and large I think Amalgamated has to be considered a hugely successful model.
Maybe we as a society still need to find the successful balance between our legendary American individualism and the need to work for the greater good (local to global). I've seen and worked with people who have done that, and yes with all the attendant problems and crankiness. It's not for everyone and doesn't have to be- it's just another option.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 16, 2008 8:21 PM
if any of you are interested in learning more about us we are hosting the following free public event this coming Friday:
Mary Kraus of Kraus-Fitch Architects will give a free public slide show and lecture about Cohousing communities around the country and their design on Friday, Sept. 5, at 6 pm at the Brooklyn Friends Meetinghouse at 110 Schermerhorn Street in downtown Brooklyn. Free, no reservation needed. Meet the people who are currently building a cohousing community in Brooklyn, and looking for new members. Sponsored by the Brooklyn Cohousing group. For more info see www.brooklyncohousing.org.
I think you will find us to be pretty low key group. Btw every unit will have its own kitchen like any apt. We will have a common kitchen for community events, kids parties etc.. Though the point is to live in an intentional community, the extent to which individuals use the common spaces or participate in community activities will be totally up to them.
Posted by: rhc at September 1, 2008 5:19 PM

Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.