Homestead mailing list

[KNat <knat AT sprintmail.com>]

Gene GeRue wrote:
> The extreme care taken with planning and maintaining modern  
> developments is imbued with the understanding that homogeneity helps  
> to create and maintain value. Think of The Biltmore, Desert Ridge,  
> Superstition Mountain, etc. While there is some spread in residence  
> values, they are all of a common architecture and building quality.
>   
But to base on creating and maintaining actual value, as we see it, not 
imaginary financial value isn't the picture quite different?
Monocropping people isn't a successful model for these times.
Looking at past models like "projects" to replace slums, success has 
been best when mixing in people who chose to come from lifestyles that 
included maintenance skills and self-ownership talents, with a 
deliberate community mixer system to have them exchange with those 
raised in tenancy.
Communities built by developers need to include diversity of inhabitants 
for an organic design or design appropriate decay, waste, rebuild 
sources to make up for it. Communities built by inhabitants need to be 
sufficiently diverse, beyond their common draw point. to self-organize 
balance.

Peace,
Kathyann, who spent part of childhood in one of Levittown's failures. 
(and other parts studying other communities in transition)

> > My personal opinion based on observation and reading
> > is that this is probably true though I have never done
> > any work that involved or required that information.
> > Van Dell
> >
> > --- Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com> wrote:
> > > n Jun 21, 2007, at 11:07 AM, VAN DELL JORDAN wrote:
> > >       
> > > > However there is evidence to suggest that, in the long run, mixed 
> > > > neighborhoods like that hold value better than more homogenous communities.
> > > > Van Dell
> > > >         
> > > Please direct us to that evidence.
> > >