DOCSLIB.ORG

An Assessment of Co-Living's Long-Term Resiliency by Sam

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Assessment of Co-Living's Long-Term Resiliency by Sam Co-Living as an Emerging Market: An Assessment of Co-Living’s Long-Term Resiliency by Sam Pepper B.S., Architecture, 2011 University of Virginia and Aaron Manji B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 2010 University of California, Los Angeles Submitted to the Program in Real Estate Development in Conjunction with the Center for Real Estate in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Real Estate Development at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology September 2019 ©2019 Aaron Manji and Sam Pepper All rights reserved The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature of Author_________________________________________________________ Center for Real Estate July 26, 2019 Signature of Author_________________________________________________________ Center for Real Estate July 26, 2019 Certified by_______________________________________________________________ Jennifer Cookke Lecturer, Center for Real Estate Thesis Supervisor Accepted by______________________________________________________________ Professor Dennis Frenchman Class of 1922 Professor of Urban Design and Planning, Director, Center for Real Estate School of Architecture and Planning This page is intentionally left blank. 2 Co-Living as an Emerging Market: An Assessment of Co-Living’s Long-Term Resiliency by Sam Pepper and Aaron Manji Submitted to the Program in Real Estate Development in Conjunction with the Center for Real Estate on July 26, 2019 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Real Estate Development. ABSTRACT Co-living, while a relatively new concept for the real estate industry, has become increasingly pervasive within the United States over the past decade. This form of communal rental housing offers reduced personal and private space in exchange for certain benefits, including a 15-30% reduced rental rate when compared to studio units. Changing social and economic factors have led to an increased interest in this type of residential product among both real estate developers and tenants alike. Today, there are approximately 30 co-living companies operating in the United States with close to 3,500 rooms in operation (JLL 2019a). Furthermore, this growth is expected to accelerate as global funding for co-living has increased by more than 210% since 2015 and around 7,000 rooms are planned to open in the United States over the next two years (JLL 2019a). However, while the concept has gained traction, it remains a nascent product type within real estate. Even with high growth, co-living’s long-term sustainability remains to be proven. This thesis uses a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the long-term resiliency of co-living as a product type. Our research provides insight into the various types of co-living business models currently active in the United States, and we conduct a thorough review of the international and domestic co-living markets. Financial models are utilized to assess the financial resiliency of co- living given potential changes to certain market conditions and demand drivers. We investigate the planning policies affecting co-living in targeted markets in the United States. The thesis concludes with a report on the market perception of co-living from real estate professionals and the general populous. Thesis Supervisor: Jennifer Cookke Title: Lecturer, Center for Real Estate 3 Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following people. Your input was essential for our research. Jeremiah Adler Roy Alpert Elvina Beck Samantha Gajewski Charles Kuntz Brian Lee Edward Laurence Christine McDannell Jeffrey Munger Tanin Paisarnsrisin Mo Sakrani Jacob Shapiro Eli Sokol Shawn Tsai Ted Tye Lucas Umbreit Steve Weikal Brian Wang This thesis would not have been possible without the support of our Advisor. Thank you for giving so much of your time and energy to this project. Jennifer Cookke 4 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 4 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 1: What is Co-Living? ...................................................................................... 11 1.1 Co-Living Defined ................................................................................................ 11 1.2 History of Shared Housing ................................................................................... 14 1.3 Comparable Product Types ................................................................................. 16 1.3.1 Communes .................................................................................................... 17 1.3.2 Cohousing ...................................................................................................... 18 1.3.3 Micro Units ..................................................................................................... 19 1.3.4 Hostels ........................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 2: Co-Living Supply and Demand Drivers ........................................................ 22 Chapter 2.1 Reasons for Demand ............................................................................. 22 2.1.1 Urbanization ................................................................................................... 22 2.1.2 Economics ..................................................................................................... 25 2.1.3 Social Factors ................................................................................................ 30 Chapter 2.2 Reasons for Supply ................................................................................ 36 2.2.1 Higher Returns ............................................................................................... 36 2.2.2 Public Partner Support ................................................................................... 39 2.2.3 More Capital Seeking Opportunities .............................................................. 40 Chapter 3: Co-Living Business Models ......................................................................... 44 3.1 Owner Operator ................................................................................................... 44 3.2 Operator ............................................................................................................... 46 3.2.1 Management Agreement ............................................................................... 47 3.2.2 Master lease .................................................................................................. 49 3.3 Profiles of Co-Living Companies in the US .......................................................... 50 Chapter 4: Market Review ............................................................................................. 72 4.1 Co-Living Around the Globe ................................................................................. 72 4.2 Co-Living in the US .............................................................................................. 78 4.2.1 New York City ................................................................................................ 81 5 4.2.2 San Francisco ................................................................................................ 84 4.2.3 Los Angeles ................................................................................................... 87 Chapter 5: A Financial Assessment of Co-living ........................................................... 89 5.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 89 5.2 Assessment Methodology .................................................................................... 90 5.3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 94 5.3.1 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................. 94 5.3.2 Location ......................................................................................................... 94 5.3.3 Building .......................................................................................................... 95 5.3.4 Unit Mix .......................................................................................................... 96 5.3.5 Hard and Soft Costs ...................................................................................... 97 5.3.6 Financing ..................................................................................................... 100 5.3.7 Rental Revenues ......................................................................................... 101 5.3.8 Leases and Vacancy ................................................................................... 103 5.3.9 Operating Expenses .................................................................................... 104 5.3.10 Capital Expenditures .................................................................................. 106 5.3.11 Capitalization Rate ....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States Department of Justice U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey 970 Broad Street, Seventh Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102
    NEWS United States Department of Justice U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey 970 Broad Street, Seventh Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 Ralph J. Marra, Jr., Acting U.S. Attorney More Information? Call the Assistant U.S. Attorney or other contact listed below to see if more information is available. News on the Internet: News Releases, related documents and advisories are posted short-term at our website, along with links to our archived releases at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Go to: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/ Assistant U.S. Attorneys stad0211.rel THOMAS J. EICHER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 609-989-0569 Feb 11, 2009 RACHAEL A. HONIG 973-645-2777 Former Second in Command at Kushner Companies Sentenced to 38 Months in Prison for Conspiring to Defraud the United States (More) Public Affairs Office 856-757-5233 http://www.njusao.org J. Gregory Reinert, PAO Breaking News (NJ) http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/index.html NEWARK – The former second-in-command at the Kushner Companies was sentenced to 38 months in federal prison and ordered to pay a $100,000 fine today for his conviction on charges of conspiring to defraud the United States and aiding and assisting in the filing of false tax returns, Acting U.S. Attorney Ralph J. Marra, Jr. announced. U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares, who presided over the trial, also ordered Richard Stadtmauer, 49, of Livingston, to pay the total costs of the prosecution totaling approximately $20,000 and to serve three years of supervised release upon the completion of his prison term.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Days in July That Rocked Indiana Pence’S Pursuit of Veep Nod, Holcomb’S Win at GOP Central Committee Were Bold Moves Toward November History by BRIAN A
    V22, N15 Thursday, Nov. 17, 2016 Four days in July that rocked Indiana Pence’s pursuit of veep nod, Holcomb’s win at GOP Central Committee were bold moves toward November history By BRIAN A. HOWEY INDIANAPOLIS – When filing back through time to make sense of the Gov. Mike Pence and Lt. Gov. Eric Holcomb sensational Nov. 8 election that catapulted celebrate their Election Day victories that Gov. Mike Pence were forged by four momentus days in into global power July, including Trump’s visit to Indianapolis and capped Eric and Westfield. Holcomb’s unprec- edented rise in Indi- Republican presidential ticket with ana, it comes down Donald Trump. Except it was not fait to four days in July accompli. That wouldn’t happen until when the historic Friday, July 15. and fateful dramas unfolded. And on Monday July 25, after 22 Indiana Republi- On July 14, we witnessed cable breaking news can Central Committee members migrated back to Indiana reports of Gov. and Mrs. Pence disembarking on a charter from the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, the flight from Indianapolis to Teterboro, N.J., in what most thought was an obvious sign he was about to join the Continued on page 3 2016 winners and losers By MARK SOUDER FORT WAYNE – Every election results in individual and categorical winners and losers that impact the longer- term future of politics. Here are a few of my selections. Indiana winner: The Pence/Coats establishment. “The very worst choice you can It directed the quasi-slating of the victorious state ticket: Todd make is to opt out as a citizen, to Young for Senate, in part by give in to the cynicsm, the moving Eric Holcomb out and into position to become gover- despair and the anger.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Timeline 1970S and Before
    NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission- A Historical Timeline By Joseph Donohue, Deputy Director (Updated 10/2/17) 1970s and Before October 16, 1964- Governor Richard Hughes enacts New Jersey’s first lobbying law (Chapter 207). It requires any lobbyist who makes $500 or more in three months or spends that much to influence legislation to register with the Secretary of State. Trenton attorney John Heher, representing American Mutual Insurance Alliance of Chicago, becomes the state’s first registered lobbyist.1 New Jersey Education Association, historically one of the most powerful lobbyists in the capitol, registers for the first time on December 15, 1964.2 September 1, 1970- The interim report of the bipartisan New Jersey Election Law Revision Commission concludes “stringent disclosure requirements on every aspect of political financing must be imposed and enforce at every election level….If there were full public disclosure and publication of all campaign contributions and expenditures during a campaign, the voters themselves could better judge whether a candidate has spent too much.” It recommends creation of a 5-member Election Law Enforcement Commission and a tough enforcement strategy: “withhold the issuance of a certificate of election to a candidate who has not complied with the provisions of this act.”3 November 13, 1971- A new lobbying law (Chapter 183) takes effect, repealing the 1964 act and transferring all jurisdiction to the Attorney General. It requires lobbyists to wear badges in the Statehouse for the first time and file quarterly reports that list the bills they are supporting or opposing. April 7, 1972- Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 requires disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures for federal candidates.4 June 17, 1972- Break-in occurs at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, DC.
    [Show full text]
  • Kelly Rae Chi a Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the University of North
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Carolina Digital Repository THE MOTIVATIONS AND CHALLENGES OF LIVING SIMPLY IN A CONSUMING SOCIETY Kelly Rae Chi A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Chapel Hill 2008 Approved by: Professor Jan Johnson Yopp, adviser Professor Barbara Friedman, reader Professor Stephen Birdsall, reader ©2008 Kelly Rae Chi ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT KELLY R. CHI: The Motivations and Challenges of Living Simply in a Consuming Society (Under the direction of Jan Yopp, Barbara Friedman and Stephen Birdsall) Voluntary simplicity, a cultural movement that focuses on buying less and working less, blossomed in the mid-1990s as increasing numbers of Americans voiced dissatisfaction with excessive consumerism and working long hours. While the movement is not formalized today, many Americans do live simply, according to some of the simplicity literature. Practices range from buying only environmentally friendly products, following religious guidelines, or living in communal settings. Though the weakening U.S. economy makes simplicity an attractive or necessary way of life, the daily lives of simplifiers are underreported in the mainstream media. Since 2003, newspaper articles on simplicity have diminished, and existing articles lack context on the varied motivations and challenges of the simplicity movement and how some Americans live simply. This thesis and its series of articles aims to fill that gap by looking at simplicity research as well as the stories of local people in family and community settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Politics: : عوﺿوﻣﻟا مﺳا Motives Behind Trump's Decision on ﻋﻧوان اﻟﻣوﺿوع : Jerusalem 1
    Domestic Politics: : ωϭοϭϣϟ΍ϡγ΍ Motives behind Trump¶s Decision on : ωϭοϭϣϟ΍ϥ΍ϭϧϋ Jerusalem 12/12/2017 : έηϧϟ΍ΦϳέΎΗ ΔϣΩϘΗϣϟ΍ΕΎγ΍έΩϟ΍ϭΙΎΣΑϸϟϝΑϘΗγϣϟ΍ίϛέϣ : ΏΗΎϛϟ΍ϡγ΍ : ωϭοϭϣϟ΍ 9/25/2021 7:31:01 PM 1 / 2 US President Donald Trump, in a December 6, 2017 speech, announced the United States¶officially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and stated that this is a long overdue step to advance the peace process and work towards a lasting agreement. He also said that the announcement marks the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and that the United States will support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides. But although he noted that recognition serves efforts to establish peace and stability in the Middle East, Trump failed to specify the area that Israel can control in Jerusalem, something which could, theoretically, represent a chance for making east Jerusalem a capital for a future independent Palestinian state.Trump made the decision despite opposition from the United States¶closest allies who warned against its consequences. Before the announcement was made, Jordan¶s King Abdullah II reportedly warned Trump ³personally´against the dangerous repercussions on the stability and security of the region. Saudi King Salman also warned against the decision. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey as well as United States¶European allies, including France and Germany, immediately condemned Trump¶s decision. Because it runs against international consensus about Jerusalem and broke with a long-standing tradition held by former US Administrations, questions were raised about the motives of Trump¶s decision.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Planning the World's Most Visible Urban Redevelopment Project
    The Politics of Planning the World's Most Visible Urban Redevelopment Project Lynne B. Sagalyn THREE YEARS after the terrorist attack of September 11,2001, plans for four key elements in rebuilding the World Trade Center (WC) site had been adopted: restoring the historic streetscape, creating a new public transportation gate- way, building an iconic skyscraper, and fashioning the 9/11 memorial. Despite this progress, however, what ultimately emerges from this heavily argued deci- sionmakmg process will depend on numerous design decisions, financial calls, and technical executions of conceptual plans-or indeed, the rebuilding plan may be redefined without regard to plans adopted through 2004. These imple- mentation decisions will determine whether new cultural attractions revitalize lower Manhattan and whether costly new transportation investments link it more directly with Long Island's commuters. These decisions will determine whether planned open spaces come about, and market forces will determine how many office towers rise on the site. In other words, a vision has been stated, but it will take at least a decade to weave its fabric. It has been a formidable challenge for a city known for its intense and frac- tious development politics to get this far. This chapter reviews the emotionally charged planning for the redevelopment of the WTC site between September 2001 and the end of 2004. Though we do not yet know how these plans will be reahzed, we can nonetheless examine how the initial plans emerged-or were extracted-from competing ambitions, contentious turf battles, intense architectural fights, and seemingly unresolvable design conflicts. World's Most Visible Urban Redevelopment Project 25 24 Contentious City ( rebuilding the site.
    [Show full text]
  • What Would It Cost to Buy a Home in Green Grove Cohousing Community?*
    What would it cost to buy a home in Green Grove Cohousing Community?* Green Grove is unusual in its size (limited to 9 homes), its quantity of shared amenities and its development structure. Member households each own a 1/9th share of the five acres and the shared amenities which include: - 3,700+ sq.ft. high-quality geothermally heated & cooled common house w/ solar electricity, large dining room, guest bedrooms and studio space - Large community wood-working studio and outbuilding - 250 sq. ft. carport/storage unit with green roof for each household - Rainwater catchment system & cistern for irrigation - Cedar gazebo and playhouse - Mature trees, orchard , vegetable garden, chicken coop, landscaping plus open land for expanding permaculture garden (Note that these amenities are far more extensive than most cohousing communities) Each member household can purchase an existing home, purchase a home under construction, or purchase a lot and develop their own design in collaboration with Green Grove’s designated contractor. Current prices for homes range from $450,000 to $540,000. This includes the land and all the amenities listed above. Financing is secured by the purchaser. We have identified a preferred lender who can assist members with this process. There are loan fees and closing costs which depend on the size of the loan. The title company charges fees for handling certain aspects of the transaction which vary depending on individual circumstances. Purchase of a buildable lot, and 1/9th of the 5 acres and shared amenities is $150,000 ($175,00 for Mt. Hood view lot). Custom designs are very welcome but costs to design, engineer and build from scratch will likely be higher than purchasing an existing home.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Room: Housing for a Changing America Is a Rallying Cry for a Wider Menu of Housing Options
    Just as the housing needs of individuals change over a lifetime, unprecedented shifts in both demographics and lifestyle have fundamentally transformed our nation’s housing requirements. • Adults living alone now account for nearly 30 percent of American households. • While only 20 percent of today’s households are nuclear families, the housing market largely remains fixated on their needs. • By 2030, 1 in 5 people in the United States will be age 65 or over — and by 2035, older adults are projected to outnumber children for the first time ever. • The nation’s housing stock doesn’t fit the realities of a changing America. Featuring infographics, ideas, solutions, photographs and floor plans from the National Building Museum exhibition of the same name, Making Room: Housing for a Changing America is a rallying cry for a wider menu of housing options. Visit AARP.org/MakingRoom to download a PDF of this publication or order a free printed edition. The National Building Museum inspires curiosity about the world we design and build through AARP is the nation’s largest nonprofit, nonpartisan exhibitions and programming that organization dedicated to empowering people 50 explore how the built world shapes and older to choose how they live as they age. The our lives. Located in Washington, D.C., the Museum AARP Livable Communities initiative works nationwide believes that understanding the history and impact AARP to support the efforts of neighborhoods, towns, cities of architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, and rural areas to be livable for people of all ages. construction, and design is important for all ages.
    [Show full text]
  • Source:. Auditreferral
    I' .. .. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ' ,999 E Street,'N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463'. .. FIRST GENEW,COUNSEL'S REPORT AUDIT'REFERRAL: 01-11 . AUDIT REFERRAL DATE: June 8,2001 I. DATE ACTIVATED: October 24,2001 EXP~RATIONOF STATUTE OF'LIMITATIONS: . December 5,2002 -.August 17,2005' STAFF MEMBERS: Albert Veldhuyzen ' . Michelle E. Abellera r. I I .. .. SOURCE:. AUDITREFERRAL ' RESPONDENTS: Bill Bradley for President, Inc. and TheodoreV. Wells, as Treasurer 135 .MontgomeryAssociates .. .. Avenue Associates 836 .. .. AbbyJo Ages . .. ,. ,.-I-..* ,.-I-..* 6-j BP Developers, L.P. .. ...-_, ' .. 5' .A . ' Brick Building Associates; L.P. -... .. ...::- ... .--l' .. Bruckner Plaza Associates ' . .... :.. e: :: .:.j ._:_, :. ... -.. Colfax Manor, L.P. ..' C" .. .. ....a , ... 'a .._. _.I. .-. (?! :*-! , ... - College Park Associates, L.P. .-. r--.._.I .._ - ' [=I "' .Fz L. Constantine Village Associates . -z.. --- t. -.: -. , . rP.-; * .- Dara Building Associates, L.P. , . .. East Brunswick Corporate Center Edgewater Apartments Associates, L.P. Bernard Eichler .. Elmwood V. Associates, L.P. .. .. .. Jefiey Freireich ' . The statute of limitations period for the.corporate contributions and contributions in the name of another is ' . December 5,2002 - August 17, 2005 reflecting the earliest and latest contributions made to Lautenberg 2000 on . December 5, 1997 and to DNC Services CorporatiodDNC on August 17,.2000. Within the context of Bradley for . President, Inc.., the earliest statute of limitations date.is June 16,2004, as a result of contribution checks dated June 16and 17, 1999. .. I Audit Referral 0 1 - 1 1 First General Counsel's Report Page '2 Melvin Gebroe . Barbara Gellert George Gellert General Green Village Associates .. .. Bert Ghavami .. .I' I Stuart Gladstone Glen Ellen Associates, L.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Intentional Communities (Minus Cohousing) Abrams, Philip, Mcculloch Andrew, Abrams Sheila, & Gore, Pat (1976). Communes
    Intentional Communities (minus cohousing) Abrams, Philip, McCulloch Andrew, Abrams Sheila, & Gore, Pat (1976). Communes, Sociology and Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Bang, Jan Martin (2005) Ecovillages: A Practical Guide to Sustainable Communities (Edinburgh: Floris Books) Barrington, A[rchibald] C[harles]. ‘Riverside Community.’ P[eace] P[ledge] U[nion] Journal, no 73 (September-October 1952): 7-11. Bouvard, M, The Intentional Community Movement: Building a New Moral World (Port Washington: Kennikat, 1975) Bromley, David & Hadden, Jeffrey (eds) (1993) The Handbook on Cults and Sects in America (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press) Bunker, Sarah; Chris Coates; David Hodgson; and Jonathan How, eds. Diggers & Dreamers 2000-2001. London: Diggers and Dreamers Publications, 1999. Caddy, E (1994) The Spirit of Findhorn (Forres: Findhorn Press) Coates, Chris (2013) Commune Britannica (Diggers & Dreamers: Edge of Time Press) Coates, Chris Utopia Britannica British Utopian Experiments 1325-1945 (Diggers & Dreamers: Edge of Time Press) Communities Directory: A Guide to Intentional Communities and Cooperative Living 2000 Edition. Rutledge, MO: Fellowship for Intentional Community, 2000. Cummings, M & Bishop, H (1994) ‘Living in Community: Original Visions and Actual Experience’ in Communities: Journal of Co-operative Living no 85 (Winter 1994) pp7-9 Dawson, Jonathan (2006) Ecovillages: New Frontiers for Sustainability(Richmond, Surrey: Green Books) Fogarty, R.S., All Things New: American Communes and the Utopian Movement (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990) Fogarty, Robert S. Dictionary of American Communal and Utopian History. Westport: Greenwood P, 1980. Fogarty, Robert. ‘Success?’ Communitas, no. 2 (September 1972): 4. Hardy, Dennis and Lorna Davidson (1989) Utopian Thought and Communal Experience (Middlesex University Geography & Environmental Management Paper No 24) Hardy, Dennis.
    [Show full text]
  • Culdees Cohousing Ecovillage
    Culdees CoHousing Ecovillage About Culdees' Project Updated 26/02/2011 Dear reader A heartfelt and warm welcome to you. Our aim at Culdees is to create a caring ecovillage CoHousing community, at one with the natural environment – where life’s challenges are seen as opportunities for growth through learning. Within the following pages lies some information about Culdees, the people here and the work that they are involved in: What is going on at Culdees? There are a number of people from different walks of life who consider Culdees a home-from-home. Some live at Culdees on a long-term basis – in a tent in the field, or in one of the caravans. Volunteers, who are accepted, can stay for one month. After that they can apply for an extension, which will be decided upon by the elders. Who are we? The central character here is Reverend Mother Maryse Verkaik-Anand, an Universal Multi Faith Minister. Maryse says: I originate from Amsterdam in The Netherlands, where I studied Comparative Religion. I started my own business when barely seventeen, which grew to a 24-strong team. I married and after my two children were born, I gave this business to my colleagues and concentrated more on family life. My husband died when the children were still young, and I continued with his business. Later on, when I moved to Scotland, again I gave the business away to the workers. I moved into a thousand year old castle, eight miles from Culdees, where I lived for twelve years as a hermit in total silence -except when the children, their spouses and my four now-teenage grand-children came to visit.
    [Show full text]
  • Advance Praise for Creating a Life Together
    Advance Praise for Creating a Life Together Before aspiring community builders hold their first meeting, confront their first realtor, or drive their first nail, they must buy this essential book: it will improve their chances for success immensely, and will certainly save them money, time, and heartbreak. In her friendly but firm (and occasionally funny) way, Diana Christian proffers an astonishing wealth of practical information and sensible, field-tested advice. —ERNEST CALLENBACH, AUTHOR, ECOTOPIA AND ECOTOPIA EMERGING Wow! The newest, most comprehensive bible for builders of intentional communities. Covers every aspect with vital information and dozens of examples of how successful communities faced the challenges and created their shared lives out of their visions. The cautionary tales of sadder experiences and how communities fail, will help in avoiding the pitfalls. Not since I wrote the Foreword to Ingrid Komar's Living the Dream (1983), which documented the Twin Oaks community, have I seen a more useful and inspiring book on this topic. —HAZEL HENDERSON, AUTHOR CREATING ALTERNATIVE FUTURES AND POLITICS OF THE SOLAR AGE. A really valuable resource for anyone thinking about intentional community. I wish I had it years ago. —STARHAWK, AUTHOR OF WEBS OF POWER, THE SPIRAL DANCE, AND THE FIFTH SACRED THING, AND LONG-TIME COMMUNITY MEMBER. Every potential ecovillager should read it. This book will be an essential guide and manual for the many Permaculture graduates who live in communities or design for them. —BILL MOLLISON, COFOUNDER OF THE PERMACULTURE MOVEMENT, AND AUTHOR, PERMACULTURE: A DESIGNER'S MANUAL Creating a new culture of living peacefully with each other and the planet is our number one need—and this is the right book at the right time.
    [Show full text]