Is Cohousing Right for You?
From June 2006
Community Comments
Spark a community dialogue. Be the first to contribute by adding your comments.
The Hydra-Headed Client
Cohousing developments are the poster children for all the forward-thinking concepts fostered in architecture schools: Energy-efficient solutions abound and there’s a big emphasis on environmentally friendly design. But it’s doubtful, says Rick Mockler, vice president of Nevada City-based CoHousing Partners, that others with his job duties, which include coordinating new site acquisition, group-formation activities and political entitlements, will be flooding the marketplace anytime soon.
“Traditional developers working within the conventional-housing market are really afraid of working with the hydra-headed client, because in the cohousing life cycle they have to deal directly with as many as 35 prospective homeowners,” Mockler says. “The whole process adds layers of complexity to the normal process of securing land and building on it.” Currently managing a Grass Valley-based development in its nascent stage, what motivates Mockler to embark on these complicated projects is his belief in the power of both environment sustainability and community living.
“I have a real passion for building strong neighborhoods,” he says. “I draw on my past experience working in nonprofit community development for Catholic Charities in the East Bay and Sacramento areas.” Like all key staff members at his firm, Mockler wears many hats and relies heavily on his project management skills to solve financial and political challenges as he shepherds the project through a maze of consultants.
“Each day of the week can present a unique challenge,” says Mockler. “One day I can be negotiating a solution centering on traffic flow. The next day I am working through a city’s arcane political process.”
Mockler’s been able to make great use of his master’s degree in organizational development. He says that his team is able to avoid the hydra-headed syndrome by creating a system that encourages prospective-owner input without slowing down the design process. “Once a site is acquired, a typical cohousing project life cycle extends over a period of two to three years. Initially, prospective owners are asked to pay a percentage of their anticipated home buying price (typically about 5 percent).
“Their financial and time expenditure represents a serious commitment during the design and building phases of the project. By assigning owners to various committees such as finance or design, we accomplish two important goals: They discover the strength of their commitment that helps us, in turn, manage their expectations. Those folks who survive this process become pretty tightly knotted. By move-in time, they have learned how to live together.”
At the end of his workday, Mockler returns to his Muir Commons home, a cohousing complex in Davis. Mockler and his wife have raised their two daughters there since 1996. The typical Muir property is sized at 1,100 square feet and has three bedrooms and one bath. Mockler says these homes cost around $115,000 in 1991 and sold as recently as April 2006 for $410,000.
Apart from home appreciation, Mockler says owning cohousing property has been a valuable proposition. “It’s been a very rich experience for us. You rely on your neighbors more, and we self-manage by using teamwork for maintenance of the common-house facilities. It’s an outgoing. friendly life. and it feels easier. We don’t get into the typical homeowner-association problems because we are used to working out ways to deal with conflict.”
Cohousing developments are the poster children for all the forward-thinking concepts fostered in architecture schools: Energy-efficient solutions abound and there’s a big emphasis on environmentally friendly design. But it’s doubtful, says Rick Mockler, vice president of Nevada City-based CoHousing Partners, that others with his job duties, which include coordinating new site acquisition, group-formation activities and political entitlements, will be flooding the marketplace anytime soon.
“Traditional developers working within the conventional-housing market are really afraid of working with the hydra-headed client, because in the cohousing life cycle they have to deal directly with as many as 35 prospective homeowners,” Mockler says. “The whole process adds layers of complexity to the normal process of securing land and building on it.” Currently managing a Grass Valley-based development in its nascent stage, what motivates Mockler to embark on these complicated projects is his belief in the power of both environment sustainability and community living.
“I have a real passion for building strong neighborhoods,” he says. “I draw on my past experience working in nonprofit community development for Catholic Charities in the East Bay and Sacramento areas.” Like all key staff members at his firm, Mockler wears many hats and relies heavily on his project management skills to solve financial and political challenges as he shepherds the project through a maze of consultants.
“Each day of the week can present a unique challenge,” says Mockler. “One day I can be negotiating a solution centering on traffic flow. The next day I am working through a city’s arcane political process.”
Mockler’s been able to make great use of his master’s degree in organizational development. He says that his team is able to avoid the hydra-headed syndrome by creating a system that encourages prospective-owner input without slowing down the design process. “Once a site is acquired, a typical cohousing project life cycle extends over a period of two to three years. Initially, prospective owners are asked to pay a percentage of their anticipated home buying price (typically about 5 percent).
“Their financial and time expenditure represents a serious commitment during the design and building phases of the project. By assigning owners to various committees such as finance or design, we accomplish two important goals: They discover the strength of their commitment that helps us, in turn, manage their expectations. Those folks who survive this process become pretty tightly knotted. By move-in time, they have learned how to live together.”
At the end of his workday, Mockler returns to his Muir Commons home, a cohousing complex in Davis. Mockler and his wife have raised their two daughters there since 1996. The typical Muir property is sized at 1,100 square feet and has three bedrooms and one bath. Mockler says these homes cost around $115,000 in 1991 and sold as recently as April 2006 for $410,000.
Apart from home appreciation, Mockler says owning cohousing property has been a valuable proposition. “It’s been a very rich experience for us. You rely on your neighbors more, and we self-manage by using teamwork for maintenance of the common-house facilities. It’s an outgoing. friendly life. and it feels easier. We don’t get into the typical homeowner-association problems because we are used to working out ways to deal with conflict.”
The Magazine
Site Links
Prosper Plus +
- Get Prosper Plus to receive e-mail alerts, special event invites, and content that interests you.
Community
- Join the Community and start participating. It's fast. It's easy. It's free.
Advertise on this site! Show your support for the Prosper Network and reach influential thought leaders and web users like yourself. Contact us to find out how.
© 2004-2007 Prosper Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
The materials on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Prosper Media, LLC.
Community Comments