Life

A Tyee Series

Save the Planet, Share a Roof

Collective living is greener, saves money and might just expand your world. Last in a reader-funded series.

By Chris Cannon, 28 Apr 2010, TheTyee.ca

CoHousing

Co-housing is a way to end emotional isolation.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Also in this series:
Share Tactics: Why Going It Alone Doesn't Work Anymore

Related

Except for the sound of traffic just beyond the thick forest of trees, one might think the Mackenzie Heights Collective is a wooded retreat nestled in the hills of Squamish. Viewed from the street, the house is practically invisible, obscured by towering maples and Douglas firs that stand in stark contrast to the well-manicured lawns and perfectly trimmed hedges around them.

Within the thicket is a nature reserve of sorts, a motley assortment of bamboo, alder, cherry, sword ferns, horse tail, blueberries, moss, cedar, and Western hemlock, all surrounding a modest but cozy home that appears a bit out of place among the concrete, steel, and glass renovations of its neighbors.

Tucked away in the tony residential Dunbar neighborhood of Vancouver --just steps from a busy Kitsilano thoroughfare -- the Mackenzie Heights Collective has been functioning since 1970 as an "intentional community," the popular term for a collection of residents that prefer to live in a group house for economic, environmental, and social reasons. Dozens of residents have called the Collective home over the years, evidenced by a bulletin board of dated photos and a downstairs full of inherited furniture and board games.

Currently housing five adults (ranging in age from mid-20s to mid-40s) and a toddler, the Collective is a model of shared-resources commitment. "We've got 2,700 square feet in the house that none of us could afford individually," says Colin Van Uchelen, who has lived in the house since 1993.

"One family would have filled this whole house rather than five adults. We don't need more than one lawnmower, one drill, one shovel, one BBQ. We each contribute 29 dollars a month in a shared fund, and that fund is used to buy things of benefit to us all, things that contribute to all our well-being and are communal property."

Escape from the bubble

Like the hundreds of other intentional communities scattered about North America, the Mackenzie Heights Collective flies in the face of the Ponzi scheme that characterizes the housing market. Developers, by definition, depend upon growth to maintain profitability. With the average home growing in size by 45 per cent over the past 30 years, and U.S. banks handing out loans to anyone who would ask, it was inevitable that the cost of excess would come due. And some experts are saying Canada's own housing downturn is coming soon, as house prices rise faster than economic fundamentals warrant in this country.

SHARED LIVING: WHAT YOU CAN DO

Share with your neighbors. You can keep your private home and still connect with the community by sharing resources such as lawnmowers, grills, tools, and vehicles. Host a monthly potluck dinner or shared BBQ for your neighbors and discuss redundant carbon footprints.

Host a conservation party. You can reduce the environmental impact of your house by more than a quarter through simple actions such as sealing leaks, turning the water heater down to 48 degrees Celsius, using a push mower, and changing your light bulbs. Invite a conservation expert to a neighborhood party and multiply your efforts.

Turn dull, energy-intensive chores into footprint-free community activities. For instance, instead of tackling lawn chores alone with noisy leaf blowers and lawn mowers (a riding mower emits 34 times the pollution as a car), get the block together for a lawn party powered by push-mowers, rakes, and mojitos.

Visit an intentional community. Vancouver lists 53 such places on the Fellowship for Intentional Community website, from the BlueJay Lake Organic Farm on Cortes Island to La Bicicleta Rouge in East Vancouver. See directory.

And others who have crunched the numbers over many decades conclude that while investing in a home may yield windfall gains sometimes, over the long haul the yields are poor compared to other places you can put your savings.

That's the personal financial equation. Consider the societal cost of housing booms and busts.

When the U.S. housing bubble burst in 2006, entire planned neighborhoods went bankrupt, rows of McMansions were unoccupied, sidewalks ended in the middle of fields, blue-collar investors left owing millions to banks that had no business loaning them the money in the first place.

What these investors, developers, and banks lacked was a sense of community, a view of the home's primacy as a social space rather than a commodity. It's a bit obvious to say that the real estate bust was fostered by those who cared only for the value of a house rather than the value of a home, but it wasn't obvious enough to the hordes who bought into the pyramid and then were surprised to find themselves crushed by the weight of the bricks.

Intentional communities are organically sheltered against such destructive forces, centered on the desire to create and use social spaces rather than profit from them in a notoriously volatile system of boom and bust. Since 2006, there has been a surge of interest in the "co-housing" movement -- sort of a halfway model in which people own their own homes in a designated area, but share services (babysitting and repairs) and facilities (community gardens and gathering spots) with their neighbors.

Options for intentional communities

As co-housing becomes an acceptable alternative to suburban isolation, the more radical notion of actually sharing a house with other adults is beginning to lose its stigma as a holdover from the sixties, which brings to mind outdated images of hippies huddled in San Francisco basements.

According to the Fellowship for Intentional Community, which acts as a clearing house for intentional communities worldwide, the options range from eco-villages and residential land trusts to student co-ops and, yes, communes, or "other projects where people strive together with a common vision."

"It enlarges me psychologically in the same way it enlarges me practically," says the Mackenzie Collective's Colin, whose PhD work, coincidentally, focused on empowerment in collectivistic systems. "What I have access to is so much bigger than what I'd have on my own in a little apartment. It equals your access to resources, both physical space and social space."

The cornerstone of a shared living model is rooted in the intertwined benefits of practical savings and social enrichment. The garden at the Mackenzie house -- featuring salad greens, peas, beans, squash, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, leeks, and herbs -- doesn't just allow grocery savings, but provides an opportunity for group effort that benefits the collective. The rest of the groceries are purchased from local, organic sources using a common food fund. Each resident takes a turn cooking dinner once a week, and then everyone cleans the kitchen together afterwards.

Reducing environmental problems

But more to the point of this series on the advantages of sharing, the concept of collective living could -- if embraced wholeheartedly by first-world nations -- drastically reduce our environmental woes.

Our structures account for the greatest portion of CO2 emissions in North America; more than a third of the carbon released into the atmosphere is the product of electricity from our residences and workplaces, and for every kilowatt hour used in a home, twice as much is lost in generation and transmission. The average North American household produces about 150 pounds of CO2 a day, nearly five times the global average, and twice that of Europe, which is drastically outpacing North America in embracing the shared living ethos.

Because the trend has been to abandon the cities and create sprawling suburban landscapes, our addiction to large, isolated living spaces is largely responsible for our carbon-spewing traffic jams as well. If we were united in an effort to consolidate our lonely, suburban existences into urban, community-focused housing choices, the environmental gains would make the Kyoto targets seem almost quaint. If we had made this sea change twenty years ago when the environmental movement was catching its first wind, such targets might never have become necessary in the first place.

The problem is one of momentum. Despite the growing awareness of the economic, social, and environmental benefits of shared living, it is still a radical mental adjustment for a grown man or woman -- let alone a family --to move in with a bunch of strangers and call it a home. While Colin finds it liberating to have a hearty, homemade dinner waiting for him six nights a week, people used to opening the refrigerator every night and scrounging for leftovers would have to re-examine their most basic habits.

Accountability is key

"If you're a control fanatic, it is not for you," says Colin, acknowledging the sacrifices necessary for the community experience. "We've gone through many, many different systems here, and it depends on the chemistry of the people. We've had a heavily structured system. We've also had a freer system where people do what they see needs to be done, but it requires a certain type of person. It can be easy for people to be a bit of a freeloader, people who take advantage of the lack of individual accountability, you can hide out and hope no one notices."

Accountability lies at the heart of shared living systems, just as it lies at the heart of our environmental issues, the need for each of us to recognize we are citizens of a larger community. Intentional communities stress the responsibilities and benefits of shared living in the same breath, a seemingly instinctual (and often seemingly forgotten) recognition that working for the community pays off double for the individual, both in short-term gains (such as being able to leave your sick child in trusted hands when you go to work) and long-term solutions (such as the dramatic environmental benefits of shared living).

For some, though, the opportunity to connect with others may be reason enough. As Colin admits, "I just like having people to say hi to when I come home."

Many thanks to all Tyee readers who gave to make Chris Cannon's reader-funded series "Share Tactics: Why Going It Alone Doesn't Work Anymore." This concludes the series, which can be found here. [Tyee]

Chris Cannon is a writer in Vancouver. With a Tyee Fellowship for Solutions-oriented Journalism, he wrote his series "Share Tactics: Why Going It Alone Doesn't Work Anymore."

18 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Grania

    2 years ago

    Sharing

    I have often thought single seniors should be encouraged to band together in this kind of living situation. I envisioned a country place ...with one car/truck for everybody to use...a garden...with a large room with one tv...one laundry room...etc. This would not only address economical living but the issue of isolation many single seniors feel as they get older. I wanted to name it Wrinkle Wranch.

  • Jeffrey J.

    2 years ago

    This is Our Future

    Everyone knows it. Everyone except our elites that is. Know's what? That the present, continuous-growth model of monopoly capitalism is finished. Doomed. Kaput.

    Day in and day out, the people I meet know this intuitively. They are scrambling to make changes, to find alternatives. They've stopped mindlessly consuming stuff. They're interested in people, family, children, the environment. Real issues.

    We will need to return to the times of our parents (or grand-parents). With less stuff, we'll have more time for what matters most. Living together in shared circumstances will grow. And can be rewarding and meaningful. This is an example of what is occurring.

    Great coverage.

  • Takuan

    2 years ago

    yup, money is getting tight, people are getting wise

    a return to multi-generational/extended family will be the new reality. Co-housing for those without ties. Our building codes should be changed to reflect this.

  • SharingIsGood

    2 years ago

    other ideas in this genre

    Thank you Chris Cannon - please consider compiling and expanding upon your writings for this series to create a larger work - a book (or a how to, handbook)

    related ideas:
    Original purchase and annual luxury taxes for all dwellings based upon specific per capita per square meter. For pre-existing houses, these taxes will be phased in over time (perhaps a ten year period). Objectivists have had their way for far too long. They are stealing resources from children of the future and from the rest of us in the present.

    Zoning changes in all municipalities and regional districts with Tax incentives to retrofit large homes to duplexes and triplexes. Even if people don't want to share kitchens and bathrooms, they may be willing, (as the article states) to share some common spaces - or at least the same roof and driveway.

    Better access to grants for poor people and tax incentives for wealthy people to retrofit existing houses for energy efficiency.

  • Bytesmiths

    2 years ago

    Come help us do this!

    We're trying to do something similar on Salt Spring Island, but the challenges -- from finance to zoning -- are formidable.

    Looking for something like this in an agricultural setting?

    http://www.EcoReality.org/wiki/Land_purchase_fund_drive

  • ConnieA

    2 years ago

    Sharing

    We own a place close to Clinton,BC, where we share our beautiful house with a few seniors. We are trying to get a few more interested people, so that we will be self sufficient, no need for Government money, nor control.
    If anyone wants to share this information, look at our website and forward it to friends; http://abbeyfieldclinton.retirement-homes.ca/php

  • Takuan

    2 years ago

    found in the Tyee

    http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/tricitynews/news/92263419.html

  • John Greg

    2 years ago

    I Don't Know.

    I really like this series of articles that Chris has written. However, this idea of shared housing? I don't know about that.

    Most of my adult life has been spent in shared housing of one kind or another. And it has never been without serious, insurmountable problems at one time or another. I even had to take one ex-roomy to court because of several month's worth of unpaid rent and expenses.

    It all sounds so good on paper (so to speak). But how often does it really work?

    Humans, just like the beasts of the land, need free and unfettered space to grow and maintain a healthy psychology. Zoos and cities show us with vivid clarity how destructive too much close proximity can be.

    As it is, the whole concept of cities is mind numbingly psychically damaging in many ways.

    I suppose if people could find a way to join up with really like-minded others, and then live in connected yet relatively distant farm communities we might attain some kind of near-utopia. Otherwise, I just don't see it leading to a mentally and emotionally healthy populace.

    With absolutely no disrespect intended, I think the idea of such shared housing is, for most people, naive, simplistic, and wholly unrealistic.

  • ConnieA

    2 years ago

    Sharing

    John, It is working for single SENIORS in Abbeyfield houses. All residents have their own room, and meals are prepared by the house-mother. Everyone has the right to come and go as they please. Rates are affordable.
    If they need company, they could sit in one of the common rooms. If they like to help with the shores, gardening or meal preparation, they are invited to do so.

  • Takuan

    2 years ago

    shared house?

    or tent? Most would take the house. It just depends how deep your pockets are.

  • Takuan

    2 years ago

    or how about a return to homesteading?

    Crown land yours by pre-emption?

  • Fii

    2 years ago

    This is a great idea but it

    This is a great idea but it would drive me nuts. I'd rather have a tiny place all to myself, a "room of my own" so to speak. I need silence (no tv, rarely music) and spartan surroundings or I lose my mind.

    Having said that, I think the idea for seniors is great... but isn't that basically what retirement homes are?

  • bluerev

    2 years ago

    Sharing is the natural way

    Re: John Greg

    Of course there are problems, the article mentions them and I am sorry you had bad experiences. First of all, paying for a mortgage, taking care of a single family house is a prison, most spend their weekends just keeping their house together. A shared house may be cramped for a few hours while people are home, but you will have a lot more free time to be free and get out. I share a small one bedroom apartment that can be cleaned in no time. I can ride bike to a forest, a beach, downtown, markets all within 15 minutes, which I do all year round. When I lived in the suburbs it would take 15 minutes by car to get out of the housing areas to access even some open space. Cram more houses together will create a lot more open space for all to share.

  • zalm

    2 years ago

    Takuan

    "Crown land yours by pre-emption?"

    That would just take us back down the road we're already on - development for the sake of making money off it by monopolizing a scarce resource - land. Better to leave it in the commons. The world will be here for millions of years longer than we will.

  • Takuan

    2 years ago

    making money

    by homesteading? Never in the first generation anyway. You make homes by homesteading. If I recall, it wasn't so easy to transfer title for flip-profits. And you HAD to occupy the land. Why shouldn't the young, vigourous and homeless be given the chance?

  • barney

    2 years ago

    Support the idea, but...

    First, kudos to Chris Cannon for the series. These are the types of discussions that 10-to-20 years ago seemed like pie-in-sky hippie BS, but climate change, peak oil and a global population crunch are forcing us to examine these things, whether we like it or not. Unfortunately I do think we a few steps behind the looming disasters that lay ahead. I see a dystopian day of darkness when much of North American suburbia, with its massive single-family homes & SUVs will be abandoned wastelands.

    I am with John Greg on some issues. This need for more urban, shared density does in no way mean we have to live in shared co-op homes and bake vegan cookies for each other whilst pretending to be socialist collective. I have also been through that ideal during my youth, and I say from experience that the ideal of shared living is so much more appealing than the realities; it is a concept usually fraught with problems, sometimes serious ones. For the success stories we hear about, I say great, go for it, make it happen. But let this not be presented as the only option for better shared living methods. Living alone or with own family in small minimalistic urban dwellings, in close proximity to like-minded neighbours, services and locations that promote car-free existence can be just as progressive a concept. Sharing our living space does not need to include the bathroom, kitchen and our privacy. Some of the real progressive shared living movements now are taking place among strata councils and apartment co-ops where sharing a kitchen or shower is the furthest thing from their collective mind. Thus, neither does paying a mortgage have to equal sellout or "prison" - as bluerev ridiculously purports.

    I think much of our living space is culturally-based, and I also say this from experience, having lived abroad, in countries where extended families are the norm. What Cannon is talking about is very similar to what is happening in, say, Surrey's Indo-Canadian community with mega-homes, shared between several families and generations. If we could get over our Western, WASPish bigotry and ethnocentrism, we'd be able to see just how progressive an idea this is. But again it's not a model for everyone, but one of many. The common thread should be shared living spaces. How those spaces are arranged and divided is up to us. My family made a decision a few years ago to abandon the family car, abandon suburbia and move into a much smaller dwelling right smack downtown where we view sharing as more of a proximity issue than an issue of shared living quarters.

  • Annamarie

    2 years ago

    Great article

    I found this article because basically I'm looking around the web for people talking about sharing housing.

    I think it IS possible for many people to live well with others. My experience is that it is all in the interviewing and selection process. A long-lived collective has probably developed a pretty good process for selecting people to move in when and if they have space. I'd love to know more about their process.

    I came across an interesting article by Sherry Ahrenzen, called "Double Indemnity or Double Delight? The Health Consequences of Sharing Housing and "Doubling Up"" (2003) Among other points she makes is that the physical space affects the comfort of the home for the people living there. Buildings with hallways, doors, nooks and multiple small spaces seemed to be better for adults living together than the modern open floor plan.

    Yes, I'd like to see more people choosing to live together. But not necessarily as an intentional community, maybe just for the ease of finances or some help around the house. I have a blog up (www.sharinghousing.com) and have written a how-to book. (Awaiting publication.)

  • Takuan

    2 years ago

    not to worry

    people will share when the money runs out. Then they will learn to get along sharing because they will HAVE to. No one wants to be miserable all the time.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.