www.ic.org
Australian Communities,
Gabalah - A New Intentional Community, NSW, Australia,
Crossroads Medieval Village, Yass, NSW, Australia,
Hits since 15/Jan/1999 =
Eddie's Intentional Communities
page.
This is written in the context of
Australian conditions.
I am not am expert on the subject but I am
a member of an MO.
When I told my mother I wanted to live in Nimbin
- she cried! Like many (but not all - hello Rayne)
people of her generation (mum's a 1923 vintage) having their son run
off to live in a community was a very bad thing. It's probably worse
than finding out he's a junkie because in communities everybody takes
drugs, they don't wash, they have sex with anything that doesn't run
away fast enough and they have fleas. They also sit around and say
"Hey man" a lot. In reality most Australian communities
consist of educated, middle-aged, clean, hetro-sexual couples and
families. Some will fit the popular stereotype but most don't.
It
is difficult to write this stuff because the word "community"
has several meanings. It is often used to describe a group of people
who have something in common as in the usage -"the german
speaking community". These german speakers have something in
common but may not even know each other. It this page I generally
mean community as defined in "The different drum" by Dr
Scott Peck - a much more intimate interaction.
Communities I'm
discussing here are of the "Intentional" variety.
Intentional Communities (ICs) obviously form intentionally - people
decided to live together as a community,plan it and create it. Simply
living together does not automatically make a community. The problem
is many ICs don't actually achieve "community". Community
can also exist without living together. The word "community"
is a bit like the word "love", in some cases it's very much
so :-) . The word "love" is pretty hard to define to
someone who's never been there and so it is with "community".
I have not lived in a community but I have felt community on several
occasions and it did feel a little like being in love. A community is
greater than the sum of it's parts, it's members work with each
other, for each other and their differences compliment and strengthen
the community. Without community the differences tend to divide
people. People trust the group enough the share the parts of
themselves they would normally keep guarded. Problems are shared,
advice and criticism are always constructive and are taken in that
spirit. Problems are solved and not run away from.
I'm not
saying all co-operative living requires this level of intimacy, but
it would be useful to have labels that differentiate between
"communities" in the full sense of the word and other
co-operative lifestyles.
As I've already said - I've never lived
in an IC so I don't claim to know anything but this is how I *think*
some types work....
Communes
Communes are the most "full-on"
type of IC. Here all material possessions are shared along with
income. Housework and meals would most likely be shared. The sharing
may extend to sexual relationships but this is probably uncommon. A
full spectrum of sexual behavior exists from polyamorous (group
marriage) in it's many varieties to total sexual abstinence. Child
raising is likely to be shared. I'm not quite sure what happens to
prior assets. I would guess that it's up to the group to decide
whether absolutely everything is shared or not. A commune could exist
as a part of a larger IC. Many communes would be small enough to live
in a single house.
Co-housing
Co-housing generally consists of
fairly independent privately owned dwellings which are complimented
by communal land, building and other assets. The homes and lots are
likely to be a little smaller than usual. The use of large communal
kitchens, dinning rooms, meeting areas and laundries reduces the need
for these in the private spaces. Some meals are likely to be
communal. Other communal assets may include sewing rooms, workshops,
children's playroom, gyms, pools, sporting equipment and vehicles.
Often the houses overlook pedestrian streets, fences are avoided
allowing the yards to merge with one another. Maintenance of the
communal areas is shared. Co-housing shouldn't require massive
changes to zoning regulations to implement and works well in an urban
setting. I'll also scanned the cover
of the co-housing book I read. Graham
Meltzer has a worthwhile co-housing web site.
Multiple Occupancy (MO)
This is what we
are. MO is a zoning code which allows multiple residences to be built
on one block of land. By law there can be no private subdivisions -
all land in owned jointly (or has one owner?). Members may agree to
portion off bits of land for private use but this has no legal
standing. Unfortunately for us MO status does not mean you can
(legally) build where-ever you want. Buildings still require council
building permits and the council has it's own idea of what's best for
us. This includes all weather access to all home-sites, 46,000 litres
of water storage per home and 30 meter fire breaks! They also want
around $6000 per home as road levy and for us to upgrade the
intersection to the main road . So much for low cost housing! One
problem for members of MOs is in obtaining home loans. Obtaining
loans for the communal areas in co-housing development may also be
difficult. MO zoning usually applies to rural settings. In our case
we're talking 16 members on 230 hectares (almost 600 acres), most
would be a bit more crowded :-) but you'd still be talking hectares
per share, not exactly high-density housing..
MO legislation
in New South Wales was originally under state government control and
MOs flourished. In 1992 approval of MOs was given to local councils,
in the case of our shire this meant the end of MO for new
developments. (I've heard an other version which says the MO laws
were extinguished and council couldn't zone them even if they wanted
too - I'm not certain which version is correct.) New communities have
been approval using "community title" (CT) instead. CT has
some advantages and disadvantages but the choice was taken away from
the people. Pan
Community Council. has lobbied for re-instatement of statewide MO
legislation and you'd best check there web site for progress. At the
time of writing one MO application is on display at the council - so
it appears MO is reborn.
Community Title (CT).
CT is another zoning
code it's similar to co-housing in that some land is private and some
communal. For example a 200 Hectare property might be divided into
100 - one hectare lots with 100 hectares held in common. I believe
CT legislation was a modification of "Strata Title"(ST)
law. ST is what allows private ownership of portions of a building
(as in blocks of "units"). CT is jokingly call "Horizontal
Strata Title" by some. Having privately owned blocks is an
advantage for people needing bank loans for building but often the
council requires a lot of infrastructure in the form of roads, power,
(water?sewage?) and phone connections before lots can be sold. This
and other setup costs make it difficult to roll your own community
without significant starting capital.
ECO-villages (EV)
This is a style of
developement which could built on an MO, CT or some other zoning. My
concept of EV (which may be wrong!) is of a cluster of houses similar
to the co-housing model but most likely in a rural setting and with
other services such on site such as shops, bakeries and perhaps
places of work - say a sawmill. An EV would have to be fairly large
to support something like a bakery but if the bakery also sells to
the general public then the EV could be small.
Why do it?
For the community.
I'm
not sure how many people join ICs for the community aspects -
certainly not all. Some people want to live surrounded by caring
people who they can connect with on an emotional level - others
don't. Communities like "findhorn" start each day with a
group mediation and sharing session. Religious communities might have
several pray session a day. Some groups will only meet to discuss
business.
Be near friends.
More people in the modern
world are finding they don't see their friends much anymore. I have
no friends living close by and few less than 30 minutes drive away. I
can spend an hour driving to see one friend but if they lived on the
same co-op not only could I see them easily but also I could see
them in groups..
Save money.
The cost of housing in
community *can* be quite low, something like %10 the cost of
traditional housing. This is partly because the houses tend to be
modest, owner built, shared and made from cheap materials. Newer
government regulations and fees probably make those sort of savings a
thing of the past :-( Communities can also live much more cheaply
with more efficient use of resources and energy. The original Nimbin
communities how built illegally in the day prior to MO legislation
may well have achieved to %10 figure. Modern urban co-housing is
unlikely to be much cheaper than regular housing. Saving are also
made in energy and resource use. They are also more efficient in use
of human energy. Cooking for 40 people in not 40 times the work of
cooking for one. Bulk buying also saves money.
Save the planet.
People in community use
much less energy than those in regular housing (about 1/3 in the US
and 1/2 in Oz). They probably produce less waste as well.
Security
Communities tend to be safe places
where you are less likely to be attacked or burgled. They're also
safer places to let children be in.
More say in local issues.
While all the
co-op meetings are a pain, they also give everyone a say in what
happens. In our case this includes approval of new members and
location home sites.
The bad news is -
Not
all attempts at forming communities end happily - the majority of
communities fail. Sometimes things become nasty. Hopefully we can
learn from history and improve the chances of future communties
succeeding.
A random rave.
In "A
pattern language" Christopher Alexander says that councils
should control the land that links the private spaces and not stifle
creativity within those private spaces. I whole-heartedly agree.
Provided we don't place the outside world at risk (say by polluting
the creek) we should be free to live as we please and take
responsibility for our own levels of risk. If our homes, burn down,
fall down or are inaccessible to emergency vehicles - this should be
our business, the business of our insurers and not that of
government.
My preferred zoning for a rural community is the MO.
It is more risky in some ways but if you have a good bunch of people
it is more versatile than CT. It should also be less expensive
initially, the end costs may turn out to be much the same but
progress can be made at a rate the MO and its members can afford. I
have little interest in urban communities, they're a great idea for
those inclined to city life but it's not my scene. However I do think
there's scope for spending some time in town and some in the country
as I'm doing to some extent. Perhaps some sort of relationship
between a rural and a city community could be a good thing.
With
regard to the "intimate community" as mentioned above. Some
members (of say an MO) could from a community while other only
involve themselves with the business side of things. Particularly
within a large MO the level of intimacy could vary enormously with
some people being hermits and others forming communes - whatever
makes them happy!
Council.
While the
council seems to be the villian here to some extent, the council
people we deal with are usually at the bottom of the chain of
command. This extends up to the politicians who (mostly) still
haven't a clue that we should be reducing our impact on the planet.
Any attempt by us to live simply, cheaply and lightly is countered by
government interference to maintain complexity, expense and
inefficiency - this also creates jobs. People building cheap homes
for themselves, say out of mud and fallen timber - does not increase
the GDP. Government would rather pay for job creating low income
housing developements than let people created there own spaces
without hinderence. Australia now (1999) has a quarter of a million
homeless but the government prefers to have people sleeping under
bridges than in low cost owner built structures.
Road levy.
It seems
bizzare to me that we have to pay a road levy which is in no way
linked to our actual usage of roads. A single occupant house where
the owner doesn't drive attracts the same levy as a large family of
active motorists.
Nimbin Rocks Co-op
Links:-
http://www.nimbinweb.com.au/index.htm
Communities,
www.ic.org
Australian Communities,
Gabalah
- A New Intentional Community, NSW, Australia,
Crossroads
Medieval Village, Yass, NSW, Australia,
Hits since 15/Jan/1999
=