I spring 2013

Intentional Com1mmities

Your final project for the semester is to research an intentional community, followed by a discussion comparing it with other texts we have read.  First, identify an intentional community, either historical or contemporary  (for the latter, you may wish to employ the online directory of the Fellowship  oflntentional Communities).  Notice that there are many different kinds of intentional communities—ecovillages, women’s communities, spiritual commtmities, egalitarian ones, “free love”, etc.  For this project you may choose any kind oflive-in community, past or present.

Find out as much as you can about your commtmity.  If you choose a historical community, you will need to rely on published sources.  Printed statements by members of the community would constitute a primary source.                                                   Scholarly descriptions  of the community would be a secondary  ones.  If you choose a contemporary community,  you will probably have to rely upon online, tertiary sources, i.e. sites that collect/compile information  about the community.  If

‘>              the group has a website that includes statements of its history and purpose, etc, then that becomes

a primary source.  Most existing communities advertise ways to contact them:  I strongly recommend that you establish direct contact with a community via email or telephone in order to use the interview as a primary source.

The research portion of your paper-about 3-4 pages–will describe the nature and history of the community,  referencing the secondary or tertiary sources you have used in learning about

it (25 points).  You will then evaluate/analyze the community  based on statements by its

members (either published, online, or interviews), citing where appropriate these primary sources

(25 points).

The comparison section of your paper-about 3-4 pages-will connect your community to two other works we have read in this unit.  First, it will compare life in Thomas More’s Utopia with life in your community.  What are the “utopian” principles upon which More’s imaginary society is based?  How-if at all–do these values relate to the community  you have studied?  Be sure to draw upon and cite More’s text (25 points).  Second, what are the main principles underlying Joseph Stiglitz’s critique of contemporary U.S. economy and politics?  Citing Stiglitz’s text, what should we be doing differently or better?   How-if at all—-do his criticisms connect to the goals or motivations of your intentional community?   (25 points)

Your goal throughout is to explore people’s experiments-whether in fact or fiction-in making a community  that is different or better than what we’ve  got.

A Simplistic Vision

Do we lack a simplistic  vision on housing?  A recent study from the National Association  of Realtors indicated that the median square footage of a home purchased by people in retirement age 55 to 64 is 2,200 (Brenoff). The more important implication of this survey: this median of 2,200 square feet is 100 square feet larger than the home the same age group just sold (Brenoff). Several U.:s. communities have challenged that statistic, showing through their movement that the difference of 100 square feet as an increase of a next house purchase is enough itself to live in comfortably and responsibly. Leaders and participants  of the Tiny House Mnvement call the option to live in homes of this size not a choice of living in a cute, tiny, well-designed  house, but a political effort to live simplistically (Shafer).

The Tiny House Movement is being largely impactful due to Steven Harrell, the founder of ‘Tiny  House Listings’,  who lists tiny houses and trailers ranging from $20,000 to $50,000 and 100-700 square feet (Brenoff). The website is run from a 90-square-foot

‘tiny office’, linking to materials and plans encouraging visitors to build their own tiny house in and out of tiny house communities.   Harrell largely blames the 1500% increase of website visits in the past year on individuals and couples wanting to spend less on monthly bills and maintenance, converting into more time to “enjoy  more important things–like retirement.”  (Brenoff)

With small communities around the country made up of exclusively tiny houses

increasing, the 2011 National Association of Realtors Profile demo  ;trated of buyers purchased a home of 1000 square feet or less.

,r—

Tiny house community members have blogs on the Internet, explaining day-to-day

living in an area similar to a shoebox.  One blog has the name ‘9 lives in 125 square feet’,          / a diary of a middle aged woman living with 9 bald cats in a 125-square-foot tiny house (LaVoie). It is until recent years that owners in the small communities scattered around the country having been expressing their willingness to come together in the northern west

region of the country, investing in a 900-acre lot (LaVoie). Lee Pera, the founder of a tiny home showcase,  blames the appeal to the communities and homes themselves as a fLmction of boiling down what the buyers really want out of a home.  “It’s all about economic freedom and flexibility,  and deciding what’s essential and important in your life.” (Alcantara)

The real question: was the Tiny House Movement born on a sincere effort by its

participants to be more self-sufficient, environmentally  conscious, and financially sound? Or born as a ramification of the economic downturn in2008? Tiny house communities all over the country looking to buy a unified lot for a giant community can be evidence of

both ideas.

Participation and expansion oftiny home communities  skyrocketed after 2009 and

were born from ideas of Kira Obolensky, writer of The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live in 1998.  In the informational read, Obolensky writes, “More

rooms, bigger spaces and vaulted ceilings do not necessarily give us what we need in a

home.  And when the impulse for big spaces is combined with outdated patterns of home

design and building, the result is more often than not a house that doesn’t  work.”

(Obolensky,  3)  Obolensky blames the successful movement and community  growth on

smart design.

3

One resident of a tiny house community in Portland,  Oregon was reported on

during a green building certification system called ‘EarthAdvantage’. The resident, Jordan Palmeri, saw the community’s origins when he saw people starting to build tiny houses where space was available. “I saw a160-square foot tiny house on a friend’s driveway, people building a 670-foot retirement home in their own backyard, and people sharing acreage to fit four 530- to 1,600-square-foot homes on one valuable lot.” (Ecotrope) The sprouting  time of the tiny house community in2010, Portland had system development charges on building ADU’s  (Accessory  Dwelling Units) (Ecotrope).  Due to the increase of the community,  the progressive city of Portland eliminated the system development persecution fines on building ADD’s,  creating a partial subsidy for homeowners of the tiny homes almost a $10,000 surplus  (Ecotrope).

Sarah Ban Breathnach once said, “Be grateful for the home you have, knowing that at this moment, all you have is all you need.”  The success of the Tiny House Movement in inspiring several tiny house communities to develop across the nation have made citizens more self-sufficient, environmentally  conscious, and financially sound. A noticeable increase during the financial recession of 2008 could propose a reason for such

development,  but in study of the actual participants of the Tiny House Movement, a pattern

_……,v·-··    — ··-•-“-‘”‘” ””'”•’                                                                            ···-

can be seen in their motivatio a-;implistic

.

Milwaukee Institute of Art and 0esigi:l,tlieiirsfcoiicept that applied to the entire

coursework  was the notion that ‘form follows function’. Homes resemble safety and utility.  All over the country, tiny house communities have demonstrated the form of homes, sometimes  encompassing as little asJ25 squar f  t,following

what a home should be: a place to come back to.  With a surplus from living in a tiny

4

house, participants  of the Tiny House Movement are finding that this simplistic vision of housing produces retirement and life quandaries: finding the importance and essential

things in life.

Thomas More’s Utopia demonstrates an ideal society in which the absence of greed, crime, and money, produces a classless society.  Doing good deeds for the betterment of the society is paramount to the participants of the civilization described by the narrator, Raphael.  There were also distinct details depicted by More to demonstrate the importance  of a proper, efficient layout: “The streets are 20 feet broad, like gardens behind the houses, gardens large, every house is both a door to the street and a door to the garden in the back.” (More, 39)

The main connection between More’s fantasy, utopian society depicted in his novel and the output of the Tiny House Movement is the similar interdependence and a simplistic way of life.  Tiny house communities  aren’t  the epitome of the typical Eco-village, but

their self-sufficient nature creates a similar society depicted in Utopia. “The houses were at first low and mean like cottages made of any sort of tinder and were built with mud walls and thatched straw.” (More, 40)  The cottages gave the citizens everything they needed, while having the interdependence of the community absorb any problems.

The concept ofefficiency is matched with More’s figurative language with, “And as for these discoveries that have been either hit on by chance or made by ingenious men, these might have happened there as well as here.” (More, 33)  ‘Ingenious  men’ and their ideas are similar to the planning and main backbone of the Tiny House Movement with the various tools for development  on the website, talcing into account no one really thought

about living in a 120-square-foot  home comfortably before it got popular with the movement.

Stiglitz is very critical of the country’s  perception of opportunities being so bright in the future, citing a poll that found that nearly 7 in 10 Americans had already achieved, or expected to achieve the American Dream. (Stiglitz, 20)  Stiglitz seems to start to

symbolize opportunity  as poisonous to our social cohesion instead of the cliche saying that opportunity  unites Americans, stating, “Alienation  has begun to replace motivation. Instead of social cohesion we have a new divisiveness.” (Stiglitz, 20)  Stiglitz sees

financially  inequality being shaped and enhanced by an increase of political corruption and

lobbying.  “Disempowerment, disillusiomnent,  and disenfranchisement produces low voter

‘                       turnout…” (Stiglitz, 146) Stiglitz predicts and outlines how opportunity is now in the hands of the govermnent, not the citizens of the United States.

Stiglitz argues that govermnental  policies shape market forces that ultimately

contribute the degree of inequality seen financially in the United States.  It, according to Stiglitz, is the govermnent’s responsibility to ensure the markets are competitive to prevent large monopoly profits. (Stiglitz, 31) Stiglitz cites the market phenomena of competition:

as more firms enter a market, they impact the profits of a firm also in the market, decreasing them by the increase of supply in service or products.

Stiglitz outlines the future doom in markets of the future due to American business schools teaching students how to recognize, and create, barriers to competition to prevent profit erosion and entry of other firms and individuals.  (Stiglitz, 35) With barriers in place, monopoly profits go up, new firms and new ideas for markets go down, making the economy less transparent. (Stiglitz, 35)  The inequality gap comes from the people who

j’

‘                                                                               6

own, invest, and profit from these massive companies and monopoly markets compared to the citizens working for minimum wage.  (Stiglitz, 47)

Innovation has been a critical factor through American history of giving firms in a market utility, hope, and more efficient and smart ways to business.  Stiglitz persists throughout  his book that monopolies provide very little innovation for the markets they are in: “Innovation lay elsewhere.  This is consistent with the theory and historical evidence. Monopolists  are not good irmovators.” (Stiglitz, 46)

The Tiny House Movement’s website has links to well-designed  plans for tiny houses for communities or empty lots outside of communities.   The expansion of the movement  and communities alike have very little consequences for the housing market, as

\              homes under 1000 square feet make up only I% of the market.  The fear seen by Stiglitz on the topic of opportunity  for people seeking ‘The  American Dream’ is imitating and admiring the 1%, and along the way being taken advantage of by the power of those in the

1%, dying a slow, financial, Gatsby-like death.   Stiglitz stating, “To put it badly, there are two ways to become wealthy: to create wealth or take wealth away from others.” (Stiglitz,

32)

If anything, the Tiny House Movement makes the housing market more diverse and competitive.   Barriers like the system development persecution fines on building ADU’s in Portland, Oregon referenced previously struck down by local governments is a sign that people do have a say in what they consume and produce.  Thus, a subsidy like the green building certification  system called ‘EarthAdvantage’ would sprout new tiny house realtors and an expansion  of the movement for a larger market share.  This would also solve housing for less income families who contributed to the housing market crash in 2008 after

given faulty loans.  Problems would arise, however, when tiny house communities like the one in Portland, Oregon became bigger and the city became divided by shack-like

structnres and homes 4,000-10,000  square feet in area.

The self-explanatory natnre of the Tiny House Movement and their exemplification of how innovation  is so important requires very little effort in connecting Stiglitz’s argument and the overall goal of the movement.  Using governmental policies as a tool to become and develop more self-sufficient,  environmentally  conscious, 1md financially · sound situation is consistent with what Stiglitz preaches as criterion for a new, innovative market share.   With a snrplus from living in a tiny house, participants of the Tiny House Movement are finding that this simplistic vision of housing produces retirement and life

\              quandaries: finding the importm1ce and essential things in life.

Stiglitz and More both acknowledge that society, fictional or not, is an

interdependent  entity.  People need others for wealth.  People need others to grow their food.  Where they both would agree on the topic of the Tiny House Movement is the participant’s willingness and experimentation to discover what is necessary for them as individuals  to live comfortably using the conditions of the governmental policies put in

place.  The people in the tiny house communitieJ_Jlfefinail’ i li;

(·- – .     =·     .?

people in the tiny house communities  are self-sufficient;”‘fi(l’tg’overnmentally depenuefir:-··

Most of all, the pmticipants’ make up a community of peonle with a unjfieq g’?! \fnjoz_

1

)ivingsi ; lly7-·) ··