I just like to think about things
Mar. 29th, 2007 06:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eorA while back I was contemplating the current incarnations of intentional communities. As with most things like this, I think about them for awhile, then I intend to write up my thought but don't get around to it. At some later point I might actually sit down and write. This is one of those rare times.
I have heard of several variations on the intentional community. Here I'll talk about two of the more major groupings and throw out an idea for a scaling variation on a third.
A number of them have the concept of single family home developments with an "non-traditional" purpose statements. I've seen examples where the purpose statement was about community, sustainability, or environmental friendliness. These generally make token gestures toward their purpose, a community center that will be added in phase two, a single parking area near the edge of the community and no garages near the houses, a set of approved energy saving house designs. But except for these small items they are the basic land and resource consuming single family developments.
Some of the other intentional communities currently in the works or on the planning table involve a large plot of land and a building plan. This is an old fashion one. Yeah, you may have new ideas, but so did the Shakers. The big house and big plot of land is the venerable old standard of intentional communities, just add your own trim.
I got to thinking about the sustainability, environmental impact, and social impact of intentional communities. I must confess I was completely turned off by the single family developments I've seen that are labelled intentional communities. They are stuck in the wasteful single family suburbia we've had since the 50's. I don't think tacking a purpose statement on will change the basic reality. The large plot, big house ideas I have heard about seem more sustainable, but seem to lack the ability to get started properly. They either languish with under-population or disintegrate with under-commitment. It's seems very hard to get commitment on a scale large enough to make the big house (or small truly associated houses) fly. So I decided to start thinking from scratch, not the models I'd seen currently being pushed down the runway. But in order to make something different I wanted to analyze what is out there.
Environmental Impact:
It's easy to dream about buying a big plot of land, having a garden, some generic animals, and calling yourself environmentally friendly. I grew up on a working farm. Some not so secret part of me yearns for that life. With solar panels, wind power, a good organic gardener, a lot of talent, and some way to make money outside the farm you may be able to truly environmentally neutral or positive. It's possible, but truly not easy. But if the first thing you do to establish your household is call the lumber yard or a contractor, you're going to start out in a huge environmental deficit. Even taking your axe and doing it Thoreau style, you owe me ten saplings for every grown tree you fell.
The single family developments are worse. By design at best they will simply have a less negative impact on the environment than normal developments. No one can pretend that a house surrounded by a lot being heated, cooled, cooked in for one family is the best thing for the environment. You can put in solar water heating, you can have an organic veggie garden, or park your car at the edge of the development, but you're changing the overall picture by less than 1%.
Social impact:
The big plot of land and a big house idea has appeal in the necessary social interaction of any group that even has a prayer of being successful. The whole idea behind the big house is social. As I mentioned, the tricky part seems to be getting along the road far enough fast enough to get solid buy in from a sufficient social community. You can talk about your wonderful plans, but if it's you talking and other people sitting there silent, it's going to go nowhere. I've seen it, people with completely formed intentional communities with all the buildings mapped out in their head. The only problem is it was completely formed by one or at most two people and they can't get anyone else to buy into it.
The single family developments may make a stab at social bonding, but unless they are an incredibly dynamic group the single houses and the independent finances will isolate and separate. If everyone drives off to work at different places just like they did in their old suburb, comes home and has dinner with their family just like they did in their old suburb, it's going to be really hard to make any change in social behavior.
Sustainability:
I've touched on this in parts in each of the other sections. The big house is hard to get started and you need a lot of buy in. Growth is usually manageable, but a later contraction could be really difficult. Financial sustainability can be tricky unless you have some good remote work earners.
The single family scenario is easier to start up, developers are doing it every day. Adding more houses is in the plan up to a point where zoning or space forbid it. The challenge in sustainability is in keeping the community a community. Serious effort has to be put into creating and maintaining that sense of community. By default these will slowly sink to the mean just like Greeley, Colorado.
Another alternative:
I don't want to seem like I'm bashing either alternative outlined above. I think both are preferable to the majority of the unintentional suburbs that are being built on a daily basis. The intentional single family developments are easier to get started and probably not quite as beneficial, but still preferable to the norm by a long shot. The big communal house rarely actually gets off the ground, but has benefits on several fronts that single family housing has a hard time matching.
How about another option?
Begin with something many of us are familiar with, the apartment. Two or more like minded living entities (one or more people) who are currently living separately agree in concept to communal living. How to make the plunge? Just pulling up stakes and moving to the country is a lot to ask. By mutual agreement get apartments in a common building. Start by sharing meals, perhaps set aside rooms in each apartment for different purposes (one living room becomes the library, one becomes the TV room). Begin to pool resources as people are comfortable and agreements can be reached. The important part here is to establish community. As things proceed pooling of resources can be established to whatever extent is agreeable.
If numbers, commitment, and the community savings account are sufficient a move can be made to purchase the apartment building or another suitably large. Space can be planned so any excess is rented out as normal apartments, allowing income and room for growth.
As new people approach the community they can be brought in gradually to give them a chance to try it out and to make sure they are like mind with the community. With apartments, you really just add another apartment to the community and take it out of the rented pool. If you own the space you can begin to make it comply to the big house style layout, within the limits of zoning and safety of course.
Apartment living is in some ways naturally consumptive, but it is considerably less so than single family housing. Pooling resources across several apartments could make a formidable economic and social entity without cutting down a single tree. It's scalable to the point of a large apartment building or several nearby apartment buildings and there aren't many people who's plans go larger than that. In the end if you had a well established community and decided to relocate to a big house surrounded by land you might have the momentum to get it started. But if you can't build your social community within the distance of a walk down the hall or downstairs, don't waste your money trying to build one on freshly purchased land. And if you can't get consistent financial commitment in situ don't count on getting it when you relocate to that perfect spot.
I have heard of several variations on the intentional community. Here I'll talk about two of the more major groupings and throw out an idea for a scaling variation on a third.
A number of them have the concept of single family home developments with an "non-traditional" purpose statements. I've seen examples where the purpose statement was about community, sustainability, or environmental friendliness. These generally make token gestures toward their purpose, a community center that will be added in phase two, a single parking area near the edge of the community and no garages near the houses, a set of approved energy saving house designs. But except for these small items they are the basic land and resource consuming single family developments.
Some of the other intentional communities currently in the works or on the planning table involve a large plot of land and a building plan. This is an old fashion one. Yeah, you may have new ideas, but so did the Shakers. The big house and big plot of land is the venerable old standard of intentional communities, just add your own trim.
I got to thinking about the sustainability, environmental impact, and social impact of intentional communities. I must confess I was completely turned off by the single family developments I've seen that are labelled intentional communities. They are stuck in the wasteful single family suburbia we've had since the 50's. I don't think tacking a purpose statement on will change the basic reality. The large plot, big house ideas I have heard about seem more sustainable, but seem to lack the ability to get started properly. They either languish with under-population or disintegrate with under-commitment. It's seems very hard to get commitment on a scale large enough to make the big house (or small truly associated houses) fly. So I decided to start thinking from scratch, not the models I'd seen currently being pushed down the runway. But in order to make something different I wanted to analyze what is out there.
Environmental Impact:
It's easy to dream about buying a big plot of land, having a garden, some generic animals, and calling yourself environmentally friendly. I grew up on a working farm. Some not so secret part of me yearns for that life. With solar panels, wind power, a good organic gardener, a lot of talent, and some way to make money outside the farm you may be able to truly environmentally neutral or positive. It's possible, but truly not easy. But if the first thing you do to establish your household is call the lumber yard or a contractor, you're going to start out in a huge environmental deficit. Even taking your axe and doing it Thoreau style, you owe me ten saplings for every grown tree you fell.
The single family developments are worse. By design at best they will simply have a less negative impact on the environment than normal developments. No one can pretend that a house surrounded by a lot being heated, cooled, cooked in for one family is the best thing for the environment. You can put in solar water heating, you can have an organic veggie garden, or park your car at the edge of the development, but you're changing the overall picture by less than 1%.
Social impact:
The big plot of land and a big house idea has appeal in the necessary social interaction of any group that even has a prayer of being successful. The whole idea behind the big house is social. As I mentioned, the tricky part seems to be getting along the road far enough fast enough to get solid buy in from a sufficient social community. You can talk about your wonderful plans, but if it's you talking and other people sitting there silent, it's going to go nowhere. I've seen it, people with completely formed intentional communities with all the buildings mapped out in their head. The only problem is it was completely formed by one or at most two people and they can't get anyone else to buy into it.
The single family developments may make a stab at social bonding, but unless they are an incredibly dynamic group the single houses and the independent finances will isolate and separate. If everyone drives off to work at different places just like they did in their old suburb, comes home and has dinner with their family just like they did in their old suburb, it's going to be really hard to make any change in social behavior.
Sustainability:
I've touched on this in parts in each of the other sections. The big house is hard to get started and you need a lot of buy in. Growth is usually manageable, but a later contraction could be really difficult. Financial sustainability can be tricky unless you have some good remote work earners.
The single family scenario is easier to start up, developers are doing it every day. Adding more houses is in the plan up to a point where zoning or space forbid it. The challenge in sustainability is in keeping the community a community. Serious effort has to be put into creating and maintaining that sense of community. By default these will slowly sink to the mean just like Greeley, Colorado.
Another alternative:
I don't want to seem like I'm bashing either alternative outlined above. I think both are preferable to the majority of the unintentional suburbs that are being built on a daily basis. The intentional single family developments are easier to get started and probably not quite as beneficial, but still preferable to the norm by a long shot. The big communal house rarely actually gets off the ground, but has benefits on several fronts that single family housing has a hard time matching.
How about another option?
Begin with something many of us are familiar with, the apartment. Two or more like minded living entities (one or more people) who are currently living separately agree in concept to communal living. How to make the plunge? Just pulling up stakes and moving to the country is a lot to ask. By mutual agreement get apartments in a common building. Start by sharing meals, perhaps set aside rooms in each apartment for different purposes (one living room becomes the library, one becomes the TV room). Begin to pool resources as people are comfortable and agreements can be reached. The important part here is to establish community. As things proceed pooling of resources can be established to whatever extent is agreeable.
If numbers, commitment, and the community savings account are sufficient a move can be made to purchase the apartment building or another suitably large. Space can be planned so any excess is rented out as normal apartments, allowing income and room for growth.
As new people approach the community they can be brought in gradually to give them a chance to try it out and to make sure they are like mind with the community. With apartments, you really just add another apartment to the community and take it out of the rented pool. If you own the space you can begin to make it comply to the big house style layout, within the limits of zoning and safety of course.
Apartment living is in some ways naturally consumptive, but it is considerably less so than single family housing. Pooling resources across several apartments could make a formidable economic and social entity without cutting down a single tree. It's scalable to the point of a large apartment building or several nearby apartment buildings and there aren't many people who's plans go larger than that. In the end if you had a well established community and decided to relocate to a big house surrounded by land you might have the momentum to get it started. But if you can't build your social community within the distance of a walk down the hall or downstairs, don't waste your money trying to build one on freshly purchased land. And if you can't get consistent financial commitment in situ don't count on getting it when you relocate to that perfect spot.
