Here, thanks to the photographic and filmmaking prowess of our neighbor Adrian Quan, is a time-lapse of the gingerbread bake-o-rama Cilla and I organized last Saturday, December 19. Cilla made the yummy gingerbread dough in the classic Swedish style. Together with about 40 of our neighbors, we baked, decorated, and built a delicious scale model of the entire Winslow Cohousing community, where we live on Bainbridge Island. The process, which took nearly 6 hours, is rendered here in just under 3 minutes. Cilla has a yellow bandana and blue-and-white striped t-shirt. That’s me in the green apron.

A higher-quality version is posted at Vimeo.

Remember I told you earlier that cohousing came from Denmark. Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrette were the two architects who brought cohousing to America. 

They wrote a book called “A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves” which started the cohousing movement on this continent

They have a company called “The Cohousing Company; McCamant & Durrett Architects”

This is a YouTube video with Kathryn McCamant discussing cohousing.

Ci fanno sempre piacere le visite degli studenti. Oggi è stato il turno dei ragazzi del laboratorio di progettazione architettonica del Politecnico di Milano, che stanno lavorando alla ristrutturazione (coworking + cohousing) di un grande edificio in Bovisa.

Un gruppo di futuri architetti del Politecnico di Milano in visita al Cowo

Chuck Durrett, the co-founder of the cohousing movement (www.cohousing.org), spoke to a packed house about the benefits to creating community and cohousing in our current society.  The event was produced to garner support and interested parties in  developing a cohousing development in Mountain View, California.  Members of the Silicon Valley Cohousing organization were in attendance to gather information about cohousinging.

The event brought well over 80 people in attendance with a diverse crowd, many of whom were seniors or those close to retirement.

This event was the first event in which all future blogs will take shape. Event notes will be taken and delivered to you through this blog. The reason, is to provide the world with the information presented at the event, so that all may flourish and utilize great ideas from prominent individuals.  So, below are the first set of notes taken during the event:

Top qualities of a successful cohousing design:

1) Future residents need to help in the creation and design of the community.
2) Physical design is designed over time concerning how much privacy everyone does and doesn’t want.
3) Common house needs to be practical, convenient, fun, and sustainable for creating community.
4) Decision making needs to involve the community and always focus on what will create more community.

Features in design: Common workshop, kitchen, hall, outdoor space

Inter-generational cohousing seems to always be designed with the children in mind at the forefront to create an atmosphere for growing up.

Cohousing seems to fit very well with senior housing and provides a good quality of life, happiness, and fun.

People have as much privacy in their house as they want, and outside they have as much community as they want.

Teaching skills and sharing larger tasks with other members creates efficiency, community, and education.

Cooperative dealings with external problems can be worked out if the focus always stay on the community and what will work. Positive approaches and creative thinking can help make problems easily solvable without creating restrictions to community members.

Prioritize expenditures for efficiency and community.

The people really feel like they own and are part of the community when they are involved in the creation and design of it.

Creating larger scale sustainable practices like collective solar installations to decrease energy costs and many other costs that are cut down when a group goes in on it together.

Expenses on external purchases which other community members can provide also saves money.

People start hanging out on their front porch rather than their back porch. People get to know each other and want to visit instead of not talking to their neighbors and being more private.

Cohousing can be much less expensive during an economic downturn. People can move out of their previous houses and join with others to pull their money.

Look at the geography and real estate prices to find soemwhere which fits well for the community and is affordable.

To find out more, find resources, and ask questions, visit cohousing.org.  Another alternative is ic.org for intentional communities based around specific interests.

Like always, Envirovents offers note-taking, photography, video, websites, and flyer designs for events large and small. Please contact us for details.

Sembra un gioco di parole ma non lo è: Cohousing Ventures ha infatti scelto la nostra sala riunioni per i propri incontri tra cohouser, di qui il titolo del post.

Per chi si chiedesse cos’è il cohousing, rispondo che è una cosa molto interessante e sostenibile, di origine nordeuropea ma ormai diffusa in molti paesi del mondo.

I tratti fondamentali del cohousing sono ben descritti in questa lista (tratta dal sito cohousing.it):

1. PROGETTAZIONE PARTECIPATA
I futuri abitanti partecipano direttamente alla progettazione del “villaggio” in cui andranno ad abitare scegliendo i servizi da condividere e come gestirli

2. VICINATO ELETTIVO
Le comunità di cohousing sono elettive: aggregano persone dalle esperienze differenti, che scelgono di formare un gruppo promotore e si condolidano con la formazione di una visione comune condivisa

3. COMUNITÀ NON IDEOLOGICHE
Non ci sono principi ideologici, religiosi o sociali alla base del formarsi di comunità di coresidenza, cosi’ come non ci sono vincoli specifici all’uscita dalla stessa

4. GESTIONE LOCALE
Le comunità di cohouser sono amministrate direttamente dagli abitanti, che si occupano anche di organizzare i lavori di manutenzione e della gestione degli spazi comuni

5. STRUTTURA NON GERARCHICA
Nelle comunità di co-housing si definiscono responsabilità e ruoli di gestione degli spazi e delle risorse condivise (in genere in relazione agli interessi e alle competenze delle persone) ma nessuno esercita alcuna autorità sugli altri membri; le decisioni sono prese sulle base del consenso

6. SICUREZZA
Il cohousing offre la garanzia di un ambiente sicuro, con forme alte di socialità e collaborazione, particolarmente idoneo per la crescita dei bambini e per la sicurezza dei più anziani

7. DESIGN E SPAZI PER LA SOCIALITÀ
Il design degli spazi facilita lo sviluppo dei rapporti di vicinato e incrementa il senso di appartenenza ad una comunità

8. SERVIZI A VALORE AGGIUNTO
La formula del co-housing, indipendentemente dalla tipologia abitativa, consente di accedere, attraverso la condivisione, a beni e servizi che per il singolo individuo hanno costi economici alti

9. PRIVACY
L’idea del co-housing permette di coniugare i benefici della condivisione di alcuni spazi e attività comuni, mantenendo l’individualità della propria abitazione e dei propri tempi di vita

10. BENEFICI ECONOMICI
La condivisione di beni e servizi consente di risparmiare sul costo della vita perché si riducono gli sprechi, il ricorso a servizi esterni, il costo dei beni acquistati collettivamente

Una definizione vera e propria, invece, la si può trovare su Wikipedia:

Il termine cohousing è utilizzato per definire degli insediamenti abitativi composti da abitazioni private corredate da ampi spazi (coperti e scoperti) destinati all’uso comune ed alla condivisione tra i cohousers.
Tra i servizi di uso comune vi possono essere ampie cucine, spazi per gli ospiti, laboratori per il fai da te, spazi gioco per i bambini, palestra, piscina, internet-cafè, biblioteca ed altro.

Infine, se tutto questo vi ha fatto venire voglia, eccovi alcuni esempi di cohousing nel mondo e in Italia (ce n’è uno anche qui vicino a noi, a Lambrate!).

It’s been a somewhat busy summer, and though I had intended to post more updates about cohousing, I guess I sort of dropped the ball.  Southside Coho has been similarly neglected, but I’m still hopeful for some eventual movement in that direction.

In the meantime, here are some [not so organized] thoughts about the conference workshop that Jason and I attended in late June.

1. The “official” Cohousing model is a fairly systematized process, and this (for me) is both a good and a less good (I hesitate to say “bad”) thing.  It’s good because you can see that the model as it stands has been time-tested and proven (vetted in a sense), but it’s difficult because the complexity and length of the process can be a barrier to entry.  In my case, the main barrier is simply money, but that’s a pretty big obstacle.
2. And this is where the tension lies: pragmatism vs. ideological purity.  Couldn’t you just (in theory) lift some of the communal principles of cohousing, and adapt them to an existing space without all of the planning and design cost?  Technically, this is called retrofit cohousing, but there is a blurry line that separates the retrofit model from an improvisation that isn’t really cohousing.
3. When the sustainability of cohousing is dependent on its adherence to its 6 defining characteristics, each compromise in the model threatens the sustainability of the potential project.
4. Thus, while the retrofit model is probably the most feasible in my urban context, there is much more uncertainty about the process because each retrofit project is unique to its site plan, group members, cost structure, and so on.
5. Even if the right factors for a retrofit project converged (vision, location, etc), you still need a healthy amount of financing to get started, and in the current real estate market, available capital (cash flow in particular) seems to be pretty tight for all the interested parties.

So where does that leave things?  I really don’t know.  Some folks briefly discussed the idea of shopping for grants or investors, but I’m not sure how far that could actually go.  I’m always open to suggestions, so if anyone has some ideas, I’m listening…

[Final Report recently posted on the IPA website at http://www.csufresno.edu/anthropology/ipa/]

We are excited to announce the acceptance of a session of papers we organized about our Library User Experience Study.  We include the session abstract here and posted all of the paper abstracts at TheAnthroGeek.com

Practicing Anthropology in the Shelves: Designing Academic Libraries via Ethnography, a Presentation at the 108th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Philadelphia PA

Session Abstract: Anthropology is most relevant to the public when it improves the lives of non-anthropologists. Practicing anthropology, as a type of research done to solve practical problems with relevant stakeholders who stand to gain or lose from a project, has a long tradition outside academia. Conversely, practicing anthropology on a college campus, across disciplines is a relatively recent phenomenon. Responding to this year’s theme, the papers on this panel speak to an “academic public” comprised of non-anthropologists across college campuses. Acknowledging one potential “end” of anthropology as an independent university discipline, panelists illustrate a bright future for practicing anthropology amongst this “academic public”.

Using ethnography to empirically investigate the factors that influence human relations between each other and their environment, practicing anthropology helps provide stakeholders invested and interested in this research to adopt effective and efficient responses to the problems relevant to them. California State University Fresno’s Institute of Public Anthropology (IPA) is an organization dedicated to improving the quality of life in California’s Central Valley through practicing design anthropology. By utilizing a mix of traditional and innovative methodologies, members of the IPA are able to make ethnographic approaches relevant to areas normally ignored by academic anthropology programs. The papers on this panel represent some of the latest research on user experience based upon a 15 month ethnographic investigation of CSU-Fresno’s Henry Madden Library.

In the first paper, Visser presents the context of the study, illuminating the relevance and use of traditional university libraries to “21st century students”. The following two papers by Barela, Arnold and Dotson provide a detailed explication of the background and methods of this study while emphasizing the strategies involved in ascertaining emic conceptualizations of “scholarship” (Barela) and ”library resources” (Arnold and Dotson) by predominantly ”first generation” college students. The next pair of papers by Mullooly, Ruwe and Scroggins explore some of the initial findings and that have evolved from the Library Study in terms of student/librarian disjunctures: disjunctures of the meaning of “reference” (Mullooly and Ruwe) “and of perception of time (Scroggins). The final paper by Delcore concludes the presentations with a discussion of the relevance of this sort of investigation to the evolution of design anthropology in relation to a variety of publics. Nancy Fried Foster, a leading voice in anthropological investigations of libraries, will discuss the papers at the close of the session.

The papers represent practicing efforts that analyze pressing issues in the contexts of scholarship, design, integration and innovation. Each presentation will be a rapid, data rich presentation (following the Pecha Kucha format) which will allow for an open discussion to follow including a critical analysis of the benefits of such approaches as well as the potential problems inherent in facing an “academic public”.

Need a little inspiration? Well we did! So, last Thursday we headed out to Clearwater Commons for a presentation and tour of Snohomish County’s first Low Impact Development project, hosted by the Snohomish County Sustainable Task Force. That’s right! County ‘Development’ guidelines are officially being rewritten thanks to the passion and perseverance of an amazing group of families at Clearwater Commons.

In June 2006 these families (and future homeowners) formed the Clearwater Commons LLC and purchased a 7.4 acre site on North Creek, 11 miles north of Seattle’s city limits, with the intention of creating an intentional, ecologically-responsible residential community. The inspiration for the community grew from founding members’ involvement in The Clearwater School, a democratically run Sudbury school (k-12) located across the street.

After three years of pioneering work,  Snohomish County has now given Clearwater Commons final approval to proceed with site development and building construction, which will begin this summer.  This is the first project of its kind to combine the use of comprehensive low impact development methods, intentional community values and innovative green building techniques.

A few examples of  the “deep green”  or “low-impact” strategies planned at Clearwater Commons include the use of permeable walkways and driveway surfaces to reduce water runoff. The Commons will produce no water run-off, channeling what water doesn’t soak back into the soil naturally into a raingarden. This is in stark contrast to the original developer’s idea of placing a large retention basin on the site. Non-native plants will be then be replaced with more appropriate species already growing in an on-site nursery.

The Clearwater Commons Plan also includes a cluster of 16 homes which will be built on Pin Pile Foundations, small concrete pods that support the structure without digging down into the soil. Uncharacteristic of traditional poured concrete foundations, shallow groundwater will be able to move unhindered under the homes, thus mimicking traditional flow paths. The homes will be complete with solar panels, green roofs and a host of other deep green features.

This summer also marks the commencement of the North Creek restoration project.  This ¼ mile of environmentally-sensitive salmon habitat, which winds through both the Commons and School sites, is aptly named the Clearwater Reach of North Creek and is considered one of the best opportunities to restore salmon habitat in south Snohomish County. While engineering design and noxious weed removal has begun, grants received from Snohomish County and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation will aide in the placement of in-stream structures and native plantings in the upcoming year.

Clearwater Commons is looking for new members interested in becoming future residents and active community members. For more information visit Joining Clearwater Commons.

****

If you’re interested in learning more about cohousing in and around Seattle, visit our Communities page or give us a call today.

The 2009 National Cohousing Conference is now in full swing, and even though I’m not attending any of the main events, I have plenty to think about from the Getting it Built workshop I attended on Wednesday with Jason. Kathryn McCamant was the presenter, and it was interesting to hear about her extensive experience in cohousing development.

I’m still processing some of the info-overload from the workshop, but there were definitely a few things that stuck out to me initially.

1. Cohousing is a beautiful idea, and it definitely has the transformative capacity to significantly reshape the way we live. Those who are leading this emerging movement are inspired by an alternative vision of neighborhoods, community, and sustainability that deconstructs the status quo of sprawl, isolation, and consumerism in most of the housing options currently available to us.
2. With that said, it is also a very long, costly, and difficult process that could go terribly wrong. For much to be gained, much is risked. Seeing the whole process unpacked is pretty intimidating.
3. It struck me that there is a great deal of privilege in cohousing; merely having the conversation about alternative/sustainable models of housing assumes a certain level of socioeconomic privilege. Being the only person of color in the room made me wonder: are people of color not interested in cohousing, or is it my privilege that makes me interested, or both?
4. Regardless of where any of this goes (if anywhere at all), I’m always encouraged when people sit around a table and share ideas about how to make “community” and “sustainability” (and the broad categories those concepts represent) more of a reality in our lives. Life is too short and too misdirected by competing agendas to not ask these difficult questions.

More to follow later.

The 2009 National Cohousing Conference is now in full swing, and even though I’m not attending any of the main events, I have plenty to think about from the Getting it Built workshop I attended on Wednesday with Jason. Kathryn McCamant was the presenter, and it was interesting to hear about her extensive experience in cohousing development.

I’m still processing some of the info-overload from the workshop, but there were definitely a few things that stuck out to me initially.

1. Cohousing is a beautiful idea, and it definitely has the transformative capacity to significantly reshape the way we live.  Those who are leading this emerging movement are inspired by an alternative vision of neighborhoods, community, and sustainability that deconstructs the status quo of sprawl, isolation, and consumerism in most of the housing options currently available to us.
2. With that said, it is also a very long, costly, and difficult process that could go terribly wrong.  For much to be gained, much is risked.  Seeing the whole process unpacked is pretty intimidating.
3. It struck me that there is a great deal of privilege in cohousing; merely having the conversation about alternative/sustainable models of housing assumes a certain level of socioeconomic privilege.  Being the only person of color in the room made me wonder: are people of color not interested in cohousing, or is it my privilege that makes me interested, or both?
4. Regardless of where any of this goes (if anywhere at all), I’m always encouraged when people sit around a table and share ideas about how to make “community” and “sustainability” (and the broad categories those concepts represent) more of a reality in our lives.  Life is too short and too misdirected by competing agendas to not ask these difficult questions.

More to follow later.

For me, summer is one long love affair with fruit.  I live in a cohousing community in northern California where we have a sizeable chunk of our acreage devoted to a fruit orchard (& I use we here pretty loosely because I had nothing to do with the original planning).  While we have many fruit and nut trees planted throughout our little “village”, the real fruit onslaught begins in late May with the cherries – we have bings that are truly amazing once they are ripe, if (and it’s a pretty big if) you can wait.  Mostly, the kids can’t wait – it’s become something of a community ritual that once the cherries have turned even a tiny bit red, the kids begin to pick and eat them.  They don’t seem to mind a bit that the fruit has not yet reached it’s full potential, they are simply happy for the start of the season.   Fortunately, there is one cherry tree that routinely ripens before the others & the kids seem to exhaust their supply of early-picking energy on this tree so that the rest of the cherries do fully ripen.  I love cherries, especially the Raniers, but it’s the nectarines that come later in the summer are my absolute favorite.  However, apricots are a very close second and they are just ripening.  The thing about an orchard is that most of the fruit is ripe all at once  – this week, or actually today, there are some perfectly ripe apricots to be found, but you have to look a little & be selective.  By the end of the week this will no longer be the case.  The apricots will be ready.  And they will not wait!  It will be time to make jam and can fruit for a less bountiful season.  I’ll have to make some room in my pantry cupboards!

It’s been quite warm here in the past week and when the temperature soars, I tend to be less hungry and when I am hungry, I want much lighter fare.  Today, I needed to stretch my legs after a morning at the computer so I went for a little walk and made a lunch out of sun-warm apricots picked from the tree.  There is nothing quite like eating a piece of juicy fruit right after you pick it.  It’s almost like eating sunshine.

If you don’t have an orchard or an apricot tree or a neighbor who is trying to get rid of too much fruit – you should be able to find some at your local farmer’s market or a fruit stand or even your local food co-op.  Really ripe apricots don’t travel too well, so it’s best to eat them close to the source!

Happy summer!

Cohousing is a type of collaborative housing in which the community is planned, owned and managed by the residents. Cohousing residents usually have their own private house or apartment, but then have access to generous shared areas which creates a village like atmosphere. Cohousing fosters community, sharing, green, and economical living.

In Contra Costa County there is a community known as Pleasant Hill Cohousing. Once in awhile there will be a unit for sale, rent or available for house-sitting. Pleasant Hill Cohousing offers free monthly tours of their community; see their website for more information. Currently there is a unit for sale which is a 2 bedroom, 1.5 bath townhome priced at $480,000  plus $9,000 for the carport (separate parcel), total $489,000. If interested contact Joanne Brown: joanne@joannebrown.com.

A new 23-24 unit cohousing community in Berkeley is being formed. 1-2 bedroom flats will be close to everything. For more information visit: East Bay Cohousing (EBCOHO)

There is a Tour de East Bay Cohousing event on Sunday, June 14^th from 9 am to 3:30 pm. Cost: $35-45. Bicycle to and explore 6 cohousing locations in the Berkeley/Oakland area.

Interested in cohousing?  Search the US Directory of Cohousing for a location near you.

I am working on berkshire cohousing core values, at: http://richarddelorenzi.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/berkshire-cohousing-core-values/

It is still mostly on paper, but here are my starting points:

My personal organisational core values are at:
http://richarddelorenzi.wordpress.com/207/

What will be in the berkshire cohousing core values

• Extract from cohousing book (list that defines co housing).
• Consensus decision making.
• 4 forms of capital: Sociol, Green/Ecologicol, Money, Spiritual

It will have a free licence. (probably Creative commons)

What will not be:

• polacy
• vision

Recentemente la biblioteca ha acquistato alcuni libri su nuovi modi di abitare, già piuttosto diffusi all’estero e che si stanno diffondendo anche da noi. La coabitazione, il raccogliersi di più nuclei familiari che condividono spazi, strumenti, momenti di vita e di lavoro, è una pratica antica. Adesso, nei nostri tempi così difficili, è una pratica che sta ritornando in auge, ma con un livello diverso di consapevolezza e di intenzionalità.  Caduti i vincoli della parentela,  resta il legame  della condivisione di idee e  modi di vivere. “Coabitare” è diventato un modo nuovo di intendere i rapporti sociali che derivano dalla vicinanza: chi sceglie di abitare insieme o vicino non vive tra estranei, conosciuti solo perché condomini o casuali vicini di casa, ma tra sodali.  Il nuovo modello di abitazione e di vicinato si differenzia anche dalla classica cooperativa edilizia, che normalmente porta alla condivisione di costi ma non implica rapporti diversi tra i cooperanti. Più che di cooperative edilizie, si parla adesso di autocostruzione, di progettazione partecipata. Si parla anche di ecovillaggi e di condomini solidali, ma soprattutto di partecipazione elettiva, di comunità intenzionali: in una parola, soprattutto di cohousing.

Il termine cohousing esprime l’espansione dei significati di casa, di vicinato, di comunità. L’ intuizione è che in società dominate dal lavoro e dalla coesistenza forzata nelle grandi città sia necessario ricreare il clima e i “servizi” offerti dal vecchio villaggio, pur nel contesto della realtà del nostro modernissimo secolo. Il movimento all’indietro verso la “comunità” si presenta oggi come la chiave alla sostenibilità nel mondo occidentale. Dalla Danimarca, dove è nata a metà degli anni Sessanta, l’esperienza del cohousing si è rapidamente diffusa nel resto del mondo, dal Canada agli Stati Uniti, dove oggi si trovano importanti modelli di riferimento (Vancouver, lo Swan’s Market di Oakland, gli ecovillaggi simbolo di Twin Oaks, Virginia, o The Farm in Tennessee). Sono questi alcuni degli esempi di cohousing che oggi sono fonte d’ispirazione e riferimento anche per l’Italia. Gli insediamenti in cohousing vedono sempre la compresenza di spazi abitativi individuali e di spazi comuni. Gli spazi condivisi possono essere di vario tipo: spazi multifunzionali, cucine e spazi pranzo, spazi gioco per i bambini, spazi verdi (orto, giardino), lavanderia, spazio per raccolta e compostaggio dei rifiuti, dispense per le scorte dei gruppi d’acquisto, etc. Si possono condividere anche servizi: sorveglianza dei bambini, car o bici-sharing, acquisti, preparazione dei pasti …

Per saperne di più

Libri in biblioteca

• The cohousing handbook : building a place for community, di Chris and Kelly Scotthanson. Revised edition, Gabriola Island, 2005
• Cohousing : a contemporary approach to housing ourselves, di Katryn McCamant and Charles Durrett with Ellen Hertzmann. 2. edition, Berkeley, 1994
• Senior cohousing : a community approach to independent living : the handbook, di Charles Durrett. Berkeley 2005
• Sustainable community : learning from the cohousing model, di Graham Meltzer. Trafford, 2005
• Creating a life together : practical tools to grow ecovillages and intentional communities, di Diana Leafe Christian. Gabriola Island, 2003
• Cambio casa, cambio vita : dal cohousing all’autocostruzione, dalla comunità di famiglie alle cooperative edilizie : come cambiare casa (o costruirla) e vivere meglio, di Andrea Rottini. Milano, 2008
• Cohousing e condomini solidali : guida pratica alle nuove forme di vicinato e vita in comune, con allegato il documentario “Vivere in cohousing”, a cura di Matthieu Lietaert. Firenze, 2007
• Eco-villages & sustainable communities : models for 21. century living. Findhorn, 1996

Siti

• www.cohousing.it  (sito italiano del cohousing)
• www.coabitare.org (associazione CoAbitare di Torino)
• www.cohousing-italy.com (Associazione CoHabitando)
• www.ecoabitare.org (associazione EcoAbitare di Roma)
• www.mappaecovillaggi.it  (sito della RIVE, la Rete italiana dei villaggi ecologici)
• www.cohousingbologna.org (associazione E’/Co-housing di Bologna)
• www.cohousingintoscana.it (associazione Cohousing in Toscana di Firenze)
• www.calambrone.it (sito del progetto di Calambrone in cui si inserisce Cohlonia, primo insediamento di cohousing della Regione Toscana)
• www.wohnprojekte-berlin.info (sito tedesco del cohousing, in tedesco e inglese)
• www.cohousing.org (sito americano del cohousing)
• www.habiter-autrement.org/05.eco-village/03_eco.htm (dal sito www.habiter-autrement.org)

A list of usefull books:

• Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves
• A Pattern language
  • A Pattern language
  • Summary
• How buildings learn

Busy times. Professor Peter Phibbs and myself hosted a Sydney visit by community land trust expert John Emmeus Davis for a week in March and it went brilliantly. Apart from being his usual great company, John was totally on the job – we ran a public documentary screening, professional short course, public seminars, radio time and meetings with state and federal housing ministerial staff. The model and material were received really well amongst public, affordable, community and cooperative housing workers; with any luck we’ll start to see the broadening of affordable housing delivery mechanisms soon. Getting laryngitis half way through the week put an interesting spin on things.

Meanwhile I’m aiming to go back to Burlington and New York in September – this time with the family, which will be a blast. This should be a study visit to the Champlain Housing Trust to get more information about how the Trust interacts with the market and its key partners, plus a presentation at a cohousing symposium at the New School. I’m also hoping to see more of the community supported agriculture schemes at the Intervale in Burlington and will have a biit more time in NYC this time, so am hoping to catch up with more folk actually building things this time as well.

All good.

Senior housing cooperatives have had decades of success. They are mainly in the Midwest, but have recently started to spread to other areas. The movement is well established enough to have its own national body, the Senior Cooperative Foundation. This movement has its origins in labor unions’ efforts to take care of their retirees, but in recent decades it has operated somewhat out of the public eye, despite growing to dozens of communities with thousands of members.

However, there is once again a sign of movement into the mainstream, which has even leapfrogged beyond the relatively conventional apartment life of most senior housing co-ops (which provide enhanced activities and opportunity for participation, but ultimately share the physical layout of most aparment buildings). This month’s issue of the AARP Bulletin features a story about how some retirees are making dramatic cuts to their expenses without a decline in quality of life. In fact, the general thrust of the article is that people are happier living simply.

If this article simply encouraged readers to drop their country club membership and use a public golf course, I wouldn’t be too impressed. However, the writer includes a profile of one couple that “still live like graduate students. The couple and three housemates rent a rambling eight-bedroom, three-bath 1920s bungalow in Seattle and share grocery shopping and cooking.” As a grad student who currently lives with retirement-age parents who pointed out the article, I love the irony.

The article also talks about community-supported agriculture, as well as intentional communities and senior cohousing that provide a mix of personal and shared space for residents. Incidentally, this year’s national cohousing conference (Seattle, June 24-27) includes several workshops on the senior subject.

Another initiative that should be of interest to the aging population (and their families) is the Green House pilot project (courtesy of  NBC Capital Impact, which is the nonprofit wing of the National Cooperative Bank). In this model, elders who do need skilled care live cooperatively together. Rather than each needing their own live-in help, the assistance can be spread around in more affordable ways. And of course, the residents can help each other. For example, those with strong vision can read to their weaker-eyed housemates.

The aging of the baby boom comes at a time when we are already struggling to deal with our current social needs as a society. We obviously need to find better ways of caring for our elders, and that includes helping them to remain as independent (and interdependent) for as long as possible. It’s great to see that the AARP has joined the fray.