"Cohousing": A Term Whose Definition Must Be Respected
By Dominic Castro-Wehr
On the bright side, the concept of Cohousing is becoming increasingly entrenched in the American imagination— with every new project, what was once a culturally radical and shot in the dark neighborhood experiment is now an empirically supported investment into well-being and sustainability. Unfortunately, Cohousing's success has enticed others to appropriate the term for their own— entirely unrelated— housing projects, which do not adhere to Cohousing's Six Defining Characteristics.[1] While many of these individuals do so with positive intentions, at the end of the day, the flippant use of the term "Cohousing" does far more harm that good.
First and foremost, a liberal application of the word Cohousing dilutes the term such that it loses its influence as a proven, viable concept. In this country, getting any large housing project built that does not prescribe to the typical stick-built, muted, and grandiose American formula remains a challenge. Credibility— among lenders, developers, and buyers— is essential for these kinds of projects. Over the years, Cohousing has earned this credibility, but nonetheless cannot afford to be conflated with other alternative housing models, even if those models are admirable and effective in their own right.
Furthermore, a lax use of the term Cohousing puts the concept at long-term risk of alienating certain demographics that might otherwise benefit from such a neighborhood. Individuals often choose to detach the term from its actual definition because, for them, Cohousing suggests certain values that they want associated with their particular housing project. Unfortunately, this is a slippery slope. At its most basic level, Cohousing is simply a sustainable, democratic, and pragmatic neighborhood model— something most Americans across the political, geographical, class, and generational spectrum can respect, if not choose for themselves. If Cohousing is permitted to become a catchall term associated with the next edgy, alternative neighborhood experiment, the word may lose its universal appeal and therefore, its effectiveness. Cohousing— which is designed intentionally to be accessible to a wide variety of Americans— could become an exclusive, value-laden term.
Moreover, the misapplication of the term Cohousing is disingenuous to consumers, and often resembles an unethical bait-and-switch sales model. Though every neighborhood is unique, the base model of Cohousing is the product of numerous mistakes, countless experimentations, and literally hundreds of thousands of man-hours. The concept has been through the wringer and has emerged intact, even stronger. To slap the proven Cohousing label onto something dissimilar— especially onto the occasional half-baked housing project that is doomed to fall short of its goals— not only delegitimizes others' hard work, but is misleading to potential buyers.
Finally, in the uphill battle to create synergistic communities amid a culture of militant individualism, we owe it to ourselves to respect the work that has already been done. Cohousing is not the be-all and end-all of high-functioning neighborhoods— innovative neighborhoods of the future will continue to reveal new and important insights about effective community living. However, when we confound the triumphs and struggles of Cohousing with those of other, disparate housing models, we complicate the work of tomorrow's housing leaders. Cohousing means something, and when the term is watered down and divorced from its original intention, the housing, environmental, and justice movements loose an important nuance. Any short-term benefit that could come from this slip of language simply would not outweigh the long-term disservice it would be to the neighborhoods of the future.
While sticks and stones also make homes, words can hurt community.
[1] In order for the term "Cohousing" to apply to a particular community, the community must have the following Six Defining Characteristics:
1— Participatory Process: residents participate in the design of their community
2— Neighborhood Design: the physical layout of buildings encourage a sense of community
3— Common Facilities: includes a Common House; supplemental to private homes; designed for daily use
4— Resident Management: residents manage and do much of the maintaining of the community themselves
5— Non-Hierarchical Structure and Decision-Making: consensus is the primary means of decision-making; responsibilities are distributed according to skills, interests, and abilities.
6— No Shared Community Economy: the community is not a source of income for its members
Dominic and his family were founding members of Nevada City Cohousing, and have been active community members since 2006. Having recently graduated from Swarthmore College, Dominic has returned to Nevada City, where he can be found working at McCamant & Durrett Architects, enjoying the outdoors, or spending an egregious amount of time playing board games with his neighbors.
Bringing Back the Village
Chuck talked with Gregory Kellett of Common Grounding on the economics of sharing. Listen to this great interview: www.commongrounding.com
The True Costs of Senior Housing
Written by Lindy Sexton, based on an interview with Arthur Okner of Silver Sage Village in Boulder, CO
“We at Silver Sage strive to age-in-place. Given the caring support of our community, we can do so a lot longer than in many other aging care models,” says Art Okner. “Getting older is a long, fulfilling journey for most—you have a caring family, a good job, activities that you enjoy, and friends to share experiences with. These things ebb and flow in a thing we call life, and it’s hard to think of the future until one day you are there. The future belongs to those who recognize and prepare for aging.”
In his search for the optimal housing scenario Art found that, as a middle-class older adult, options are extremely limited. The current aging care model is an expensive process that promises little to no security or return on investment. Art researched a well-known Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) in Boulder. The CCRC requires nearly $250,000 to get in (for a small studio), then $3,000 to $7,000 per month after that (depending on type of care needed), very little of which is returned if you move out or die. “They are very choosy about who they accept financially because if you run out of money they must keep you,” describes Art. In another “non-continuous” care model, Art found out that, if you do run out of money, the facility will “place” you in a government or other such program and forget about you.
Art chose to live in Silver Sage Cohousing in Boulder, Colorado. He owns his home and has a secure financial plan. Art has his independence, but most importantly, he is surrounded by caring neighbors, who as a group, discuss how they can support each other as they age and become frail.
Living in senior cohousing was a no-brainer for him. “Senior cohousing is planning for your future in wholesale terms because there is no profit motive. [It] is the cheapest option in town,” says Art, “clearly the social benefits are there [common meals several times a week, for instance], but it makes sense economically too. Even if a senior cohousing resident needs regular outside care “a la carte” the costs are cheaper than institutional options. Senior cohousing should be on the short list of housing options explored by everyone at this stage in life. You can’t afford not to.”
Join the conversation! On May 19, SAGE Cohousing International will facilitate Senior Cohousing: A Roadmap to Starting a New Community, an all-day intensive on senior cohousing. Participants will have the opportunity to listen to members of Quimper Village, a new senior cohousing community being built in Port Townsend, WA, and cohousing expert Charles Durrett. This is your chance to have your questions answered and begin to envision what aging in community looks like for you.
Sign up now by clicking here.
If you would like more information about Silver Sage Cohousing, visit www.silversagevillage.com or email Art at renko2828@gmail.com and arrange a conversation or a visit.
SAGE Cohousing International and Quimper Villagers Co-present at the Conference
Written by members of Quimper Village
We are thrilled to announce that three members of Quimper Village will co-present Senior Cohousing: A Roadmap to Starting a New Community with Chuck Durrett at the 2017 National Cohousing Conference from May 19-21. Carolyn, Pat, and David H. will talk about how they successfully formed a group, the importance of having roles with a group, and the latest updates on their favorite cohousing community, Quimper Village. The all-day intensive will include valuable information for anyone looking to start their own senior cohousing project and participants will have the chance to brainstorm what their scenario will look like through breakout sessions and small group conversation.
Creating a senior cohousing community can be an exciting and very fulfilling life event, if the group knows what they’re doing. Quimper Villagers benefited greatly from finding complimentary skills from members within their group, and hiring Chuck Durrett (McCamant & Durrett Architects) and Katie McCamant (CoHousing Solutions) as consultants on the project. Through guidance and with a steadfast vision, Quimper Village is now nearing move-in in record timing.
Are you looking for the next steps to creating your senior cohousing community? Sign up today for Senior Cohousing: A Roadmap to Staring a New Community and then check out these two blogs for more information: “Looking for the Next Steps in Creating Your Senior Cohousing Community?” and “The Roadmap and Why It’s Important to Have One".
The 2017 National Cohousing Conference offers a wide variety of topics of interest to co-housers from getting a favorable mortgage to running an effective meeting. There is still time to register for the conference being held in Nashville on May 18-21. We hope to see you there!
The Roadmap and why it is important to have one
Older adults around the United States (and around the world) are making a strong case for why living in a high functioning community is important to them, economically, physically, and socially. Many attempts to put seniors in community have proven to work short term, but funding and employee retention continue to strain these organizations. What seniors need (and want) is to be in the driver seat, to take control of their aging scenario. What they desire is to create their own community.
Wolf Creek Lodge, Grass Valley, CA
So, you’ve got the dream. But where do you begin to create your own community? How do you get others to join you? Who do you work with to help you figure it out? When you’ve moved in, what then? These questions are no doubt challenging to address and, if you don’t know what you’re doing, they can lead you down a rabbit hole with no end in sight.
I often hear from people at various points in their journey, looking for the next steps. In response to these inquiries, I will be presenting Senior Cohousing: A Roadmap to Starting a New Community, with SAGE Cohousing International. This is an all-day intensive, as part of the 2017 National Cohousing Conference in Nashville, Tennessee on May 19. It will give participants a concrete roadmap to move forward on their senior cohousing community, no matter where they are in the process. Learn how to get older adults in your region organized, get an overview of how to manage finances, learn how to secure property, and much more!
If you, or anyone you know, are ready to get started on creating the community of your dreams, a community that not only looks beautiful but also feels warm and giving, don’t miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime and sign up today!
