Denver Urban Commune

[protohawk]

Originally Posted by Katiana

A place of love and acceptance, and free of prejudice.

Although exclusivity has negative connotations, I think that a successful commune would have to be selective about what type of person it allows to join -- at least in its infancy.

These two tenets sound mutually exclusive. You get 20 people together and you're going to find all manner of differences in amount of privacy wanted, etc.

The main thing I would be concerned about is that the low-cost aspect of community living could attract the wrong type of exploitative people. I would want to be around people who have an interest in living an ideal rather than people who are looking to pay the least amount of money possible so that they can focus on their crack habit while leaving their kids to be cared for by the community. That's all I really meant. Like I said originally, I certainly wouldn't be expect or desire to live with a bunch of carbon copies.

[protohawk]

Originally Posted by Bradburn1

I'm sure you've heard this, but have you looked into cohousing? The Cohousing Association of America is headquartered in Boulder and there are quite a few cohousing communities in Denver and surrounding areas. A bit back there was a Denver urban cohousing group forming, they were going to go in the Taxi development close to downtown in RiNO, but I don't see their website anymore. Anyone can form a cohousing project, you could start a new one and there's lots of help available from the Cohousing Association.

I actually hadn't heard of it . . . thanks for the info. Most of the cohousing projects I saw in our area seemed to be geared more towards retirement age people, which was a bit disappointing. I didn't search that hard, though, so maybe I missed something interesting.

The other thing that doesn't sit well with me personally is that everyone has their own house in a cohousing community (as I understand it). Sustainability means density, and a bunch of different houses, each with its own wasted space, and tons of heating efficiency lost, etc, is not very sustainable IMO.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by protohawk

The main thing I would be concerned about is that the low-cost aspect of community living could attract the wrong type of exploitative people. I would want to be around people who have an interest in living an ideal rather than people who are looking to pay the least amount of money possible so that they can focus on their crack habit while leaving their kids to be cared for by the community. That's all I really meant. Like I said originally, I certainly wouldn't be expect or desire to live with a bunch of carbon copies.

Well, if you're all going to live under one roof, you'd better be compatible. Some of this stuff will come up early on: chores, "lights out" time, quiet time, entertaining guests, etc.

[blobbin]

The problem with living with 19 other hippies is that you are living with 19 other hippies. Communal systems have proven time and again their inability to be sustainable. Your best shot at success would be to bring religion into the mix and start you own cult.

I have a friend who spent a year in the 80s with one on a Greek island. He was in it for the sex and said it was a great experience.

The allusions to design by committee being superior are just dead wrong. This is something we all learn. If it makes any difference while at UIUC I contributed to what has now become apache and I can say without any hesitance it was a much better product before we let everyone and their professor voice their opinion and drag it off course.

I'm with and for you in spirit but life has beaten me down and around enough such that I would not consider the concept feasible.

[Katarina Witt]

^^Yeah, I kind of agree with blobbin. I've heard too many stories about two roommates not getting along to imagine 20 people trying to do it.

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by Katiana

A place of love and acceptance, and free of prejudice.

Although exclusivity has negative connotations, I think that a successful commune would have to be selective about what type of person it allows to join -- at least in its infancy.

These two tenets sound mutually exclusive. You get 20 people together and you're going to find all manner of differences in amount of privacy wanted, etc.

Agreed. Made an attempt at an intentional community when I was younger. The differences were a bigger problem than an idealist might expect That privacy becomes quite valuable later, particularly in a society that is so socially and technologically connected already. As a village I think it would have a higher chance of success...perhaps buying up an apartment building with some common areas, but allowing for everyone to have their own private space as well (and not just a bedroom.)

I think the best way to create this kind of environment is to find common interests outside of ideology. I know that sounds strange, but it's that diversity that I think creates a more healthy environment for compromise and consensus. Interests like literature, music, gardening, sports or POSSIBLY religion (though that one can be touch and go) are good places to start. Political or ideologically driven motives, however, seemed (in our case) to turn the inevitable focus to nitpicky things that lead to bigger things and eventually big changes in what people want in life.

It's a great experiment. I think one of the most important things you can do is to NOT lock anyone in on it. If they can buy in, there should be a way to buy (sell) out. Definitely do as an earlier poster suggested and investigate EVERYTHING YOU CAN about intentional communities. There are a few out there and some (at least) are more than willing to share the experience of their mistakes and successes. Good luck.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by Bradburn1

I'm sure you've heard this, but have you looked into cohousing? The Cohousing Association of America is headquartered in Boulder and there are quite a few cohousing communities in Denver and surrounding areas. A bit back there was a Denver urban cohousing group forming, they were going to go in the Taxi development close to downtown in RiNO, but I don't see their website anymore. Anyone can form a cohousing project, you could start a new one and there's lots of help available from the Cohousing Association.

That's what I was thinking about. I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary or something on TV about a cohousing situation in Boulder that seemed to work well for all involved. Although what I saw was more like townhomes with a common courtyard and garden area, and a big communal kitchen. But everyone was free to retreat to their own townhome and didn't have to participate in "the community" 24/7.

[suzco]

Originally Posted by denverian

That's what I was thinking about. I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary or something on TV about a cohousing situation in Boulder that seemed to work well for all involved. Although what I saw was more like townhomes with a common courtyard and garden area, and a big communal kitchen. But everyone was free to retreat to their own townhome and didn't have to participate in "the community" 24/7.

Boulder has several co-housing communities, and there's at least one cohousing community in Urban Denver: Hearthstone Cohousing

[Bradburn1]

Originally Posted by protohawk

I actually hadn't heard of it . . . thanks for the info. Most of the cohousing projects I saw in our area seemed to be geared more towards retirement age people, which was a bit disappointing.

The other thing that doesn't sit well with me personally is that everyone has their own house in a cohousing community (as I understand it). Sustainability means density, and a bunch of different houses, each with its own wasted space, and tons of heating efficiency lost, etc, is not very sustainable IMO.

Actually the senior cohousing projects are still in the minority. There's one in the Holiday neighborhood in Boulder, but the rest of the cohousing I know about in Colorado is mixed-age. There's one in Golden I really like called Harmony Village

Hamony Village Cohousing Community - Golden, Colorado, USA (near Denver)

I've spoken with folks there quite a lot and they are mixed ages and great, fun people. Most cohousing makes decisions by consensus (meaning everyone must agree) which they told me is good but takes forever. They had quite the long debate about installing a hot tub at their common house (I believe the issue was that it was non sustainable).

No cohousing I know of has eveyone living in the same house/unit--there are ones where eveyone is in the same building, but each member has their own private apartment/house/townhouse but there are common areas such as the common house which they use to make communal meals several times a week.

I get what you are saying about it not being as sustainable as possible for everyone to have their own space, that's true. If you could find lots of other people willing to share space that way, cool--but history tells us this is difficult at best. I think the cohousing method is a compromise between sustainability concerns and human nature, and it works very well from what I've seen of it.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by protohawk

I think that little snippet summarizes your post. If everyone lived by that motto then yes, something like this would certainly falter in the wake of self-interest. I think many people, though, see that there is more to be gained from cooperation than from acting out of self-interest alone.

There are plenty of real-world analogues where collaboration has beat out the greed model. This site is probably running on a Linux server, and is definitely running on top of the Apache webserver (I checked). Both of these projects were created and continue to be managed by not-for-profit communities that are governed by consensus. There are many, many employee owned businesses that are owned in equal measure by everyone, and managed by consensus. Why have these things not failed because of your Universal Truth?

Old adages don't mean much.

I'm not talking about greed, far from it. I'm talking about the sheer unworkability of getting 20 adults to live in harmony and act with a single-mindedness best seen in a precision marching drill team.

I can guarantee you that those 20 folks will spend more time running their own little "government" than getting on with living. Person 11 will leave their dirty socks and drawers on the floor and person 6 will start griping about "yo momma doesn't live here" etc or it'll be some other nitpicking silliness like person 16 doesn't like the way person 5 weeds the garden, or makes mashed potatoes, or failed to recycle some piece of cardboard. Count on "keeping the peace" being the biggest, and hardest, job of all.

I'm saying that you cannot depend on others to adopt and fulfill YOUR dreams. Only you can do that, and yes, you CAN do it, if you want. There's a growing number of sustainable dwellings out there and more coming; see them in the fall during the annual "solar home" tours that are sponsored each year by the American Solar Energy Society (ASES). You can grow your own food too if you get the right sized property; you don't need a commune to do it, at most a loving partner with similar goals.