apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time


Blogging Common Ground: Our Town

10-22-2007commonground.jpgCommune. The word itself conjures up images of Birkenstocks, huge plates of tofu, and drum circles.

Or, at least it used to.

According to an article in the current issue of Common Ground, if those stereotypical images were ever accurate, they aren't anymore. "Our Town" describes the 21st-century commune as something completely different.

 
 

The article explores a few different types of communal living: housing co-ops, cohousing, and eco-villages.

And how are these new arrangement different than the communes of the '60s? Common Ground quotes Dave Henson, who lives in the Sowing Circle, an intentional community in Occidental, CA: "There is less focus on a specific spiritual tradition, or a specific ideology or a specific person. Now it’s much more about mainstream people seeking to pool resources and share in the many benefits that a shared living setup can offer."

Communal living, the article argues, offers the everyday Joe an opportunity to plug in to a larger community (one with plenty of perks), and to do it more cheaply and more sustainably than he could ever do it alone.

But how many of us are willing to trade a bit of what Common Ground calls our "much-vaunted freedom" for a more shared lifestyle?

Image Via commongroundmag.com

Tags

Blogging...

Related Links

Share

Comments (5)

I would love to live in an intentional community (as opposed to having roommates), but most of what stops me is a.) I work from home and my work takes up kitchen (stove) space, and then needs a place to dry for several days, and b.) I have a cat who is terrified of other cats (such a wimp!).

posted by midnightskyfibers on 2007-10-22 16:45:57
view midnightskyfibers's profile

I guess it would depend on the structure of the "commune". Yeah, if your commune shared a kitchen and involved heaps of other cats with no way to keep them separated, then you could never live in one.

On the other hand, you could always live in an intentional community where you had a separate work space and could easily keep your cat sequestered.

posted by the opoponax on 2007-10-22 17:25:18
view the opoponax's profile

My potential objection isn't so much to loss of freedom as to diffusion of responsibility. I'm good with contractors and money. Once we buy in with other people, I no longer get to make those decisions because less knowledgeable members of the team want a consensus and aren't necessarily willing to listen to facts that don't suit their feelings.

This was bad enough when I had to watch a former friend in San Francisco lose money big-time because he simply wouldn't listen to me in areas where my expertise went well beyond his (he was so busy calling me stupid that I doubt he heard a word I said) -- so I'm reluctant to put my shelter and savings at risk for this kind of community living.

It's a pity, as I see huge benefits to sharing certain kinds of household expenses and responsibilities...

posted by wende in the twin cities on 2007-10-22 21:34:01
view wende in the twin cities's profile

I for one have to say that while, in theory I'm entirely in favor of some form of communal living, in practice, the bottom line is that certain aspects of having my own space are essential. I've learned from experience that there is a world of difference between having to keep all your posessions in your bedroom/studio/whatever at all times, and having the luxury of charging your laptop on the coffee table, letting the dishes go every once in a while, etc.

Certain spaces, too, are better shared with a smaller number of people. In my opinion, sharing a bathroom or kitchen with more than 5 adults is just beyond the pale, sorry. Mainly because any more than that and things just become way too institutional to ever feel like home.

Wende, how would you feel about buying into a co-op? Co-ops are much more popular here in New York than condos, and while some of them can be sketchy, they seem a lot more secure than most communes I'm familiar with.

posted by the opoponax on 2007-10-22 22:29:04
view the opoponax's profile

Opoponax -- Co-ops are so rare in the West that I don't really know what they involve, other than that in at least some cases, the members can vote on who's allowed to buy in. Our closest common equivalent (and it was commonplace in San Francisco, but not here) is the TIC (tenancy-in-common), where a bunch of people buy a two- to six-unit building together.

In San Francisco circa 2005, the point at which you had a prayer of coming out ahead financially was roughly four owners and six units. You could have multiple owners in a single unit, so if you played your cards right, you could have one rental income unit matched to each owner-occupant unit. The rent from your unit wouldn't pay your mortgage, but it'd take your housing costs down to about 1/2 of market rent.

Getting mortgages for TICs was always interesting; banks were not in love with them. Unlike a co-op, where your mortgage is for your unit, TICs often required the entire group to qualify collectively for the whole mortgage (Bank of Marin started doing it differently right before I left).

I would never have considered this with strangers because it's so easy to have a member lose their interest due to divorce, boredom, need to move, or bankruptcy -- the next thing you know, you have a co-owner who has no interest in the project and is renting their unit to just anyone off the street. (That sure sounds like I'd be nervous about a co-op, doesn't it?)

The other problem, from my point of view, is that a TIC needs to emulate a condo association in putting aside a reserve for common maintenance -- things like keeping the roof repaired, repainting the entire building periodically, attending to the hot water heater at sensible intervals, and so on. I would have wanted that put in writing as part of the TIC agreement. But I give that sort of thing a lot more scrutiny than your average buyer -- when we were considering buying in SF, we ruled out certain developments because their HOA fees simply weren't high enough to cover their routine costs, which means either your building deteriorates or you get unpredictably socked with special assessments (or both).

It's probably a good thing that I don't have a burning ambition to move to NYC. I'd have to be declared President-for-Life of the Co-op Association (complete with epaulets and whip) before I'd be happy.

posted by wende in the twin cities on 2007-10-22 22:54:43
view wende in the twin cities's profile