Would you live in a community unit?

A community unit is where a group of families live in close proximity with one another (though not necessarily in the same house). They are expected to regularly commune, work together, participate in mutual community goals, constantly stay in touch and assist each other with whatever they need. You are expected to follow community rules and help out wherever you can. In exchange they also help you with what you need.

The community unit was the norm for our society up until mass suburbanization shifted societies towards individual households where everyone is expected to manage their own problems in their own way.

Pros:
-Community units are safer than individual households. There is also the added benefit of less reliance on police to manage criminal behavior.
-Shared burdens and mutual assistance gives you stability. When times are tough, people are there for you.
-Provides necessary socialization and helps prevent loneliness. This is double true for children as they will get more beneficial socialization from both other children of the community and adults of the community.
-There is help whenever you need it for whatever you need.

Cons:
-Less privacy, everyone will be in your business.
-Less individual freedoms, in addition to laws you will be expected to follow community rules.
-You will be expected to follow community social norms. There is a risk of ostracization.
-You will be expected to perform free labor for your community members. Including (but not limited too) helping to take care of your community members' children even if you do not have children yourself.

Now obviously you would want to get to know the community before becoming a part of it, but would you be open to the idea?

Fuck no

Only if that was my only option.......

Only if I was very very desperate.

VioletZer0 posted...

The community unit was the norm for our society up until mass suburbanization shifted societies towards individual households where everyone is expected to manage their own problems in their own way.

This is an incredibly misleading statement, and utterly incorrect from certain points of view.

A lot of human history tended to revolve around extended family units, where you'd have parents, grandparents, an aunt or uncle or two, and kids living on the same land (if not the same house). And in many cases, those people would all be expected to work the same land to support themselves. And the expectation was that older, more experienced members of the family would provide advice and support to the younger members, while the younger members would provide labor and support to the older members once they were no longer able to support themselves (ie, having kids was essentially an investment in your own retirement, and a large part of why so many societies ingrained HONOR YOUR PARENTS YOU LITTLE SHITS into both societal and religious norms).

But that's not really the same thing as a modern communal unit mainly populated by people who aren't relatives who are commuting to jobs, and maintaining a strong social network regardless of whether or not they actually want one.

Being forced into what is essentially a hive against your will really isn't reflective of most of human history at all, even if a lot of science fiction writers believe it's going to be our inevitable future.

Community units were a carryover from when we had villages which were essentially the same thing in function.

Your family, your community and your social network are three different things. Your family are the people you're born with, your community are the people you cooperate with to survive and the social network are the people you associate with voluntarily both inside and outside the community.

After we lost the community unit to suburbanization, there was a huge spike in murders because serial killers could rampage freely. They could do it because people were so isolated that they didn't know who could be doing it. Serial killers started going back down again when we perfected DNA evidence and they started getting caught.

No but I'm in favor of denser/more mixed-use housing. The suburbs fucking suck. Buying a single-family suburban home was probably the worst decision I made in my life. I guess I bought into the American dream lie that this would mean I "made it", even though in the back of my mind I always knew there was something wrong, and have only learned more about urbanism since

bachewychomp posted...

No but I'm in favor of denser/more mixed-use housing. The suburbs fucking suck. Buying a single-family suburban home was probably the worst decision I made in my life. I guess I bought into the American dream lie that this would mean I "made it", even though in the back of my mind I always knew there was something wrong, and have only learned more about urbanism since

I've lived rural, urban and suburban. Although I have a preference for urban, rural living isn't bad.

But suburban living is complete dogwater. It sucks so bad to have to drive like 10 minutes to get out of the suburb and all you get for it is a yard and big house. But I don't care about having a big house and I'd much rather have places I can walk to. I don't need a yard, that's what the community park is for.

If people were open to the idea of community units there would be no need to propose them, they would already exist

This sounds extra. I'd rather just have my family under one roof in a big house

Damn_Underscore posted...

If people were open to the idea of community units there would be no need to propose them, they would already exist

I don't believe this is true at all. I think this is a consequence of the systems we have in place.

There are two big obstacles to rebuilding communities. The first is that no one trusts each other. Community units were an institution that promoted trust in society and dissolving them naturally led to lower trust. But additionally, the systems we depend on to stay safe are rapidly breaking down and we're left to fend for ourselves. If we start a community and one person turns out to be a thief or a psychopath then there's fears that there's not a whole lot we can do about that. Not to mention that we're rapidly approaching a point where parents are so paranoid that they don't let their children around other adults in general. There's a trend towards anti-social behavior in our society.

The second is that the way our real estate is set up, you can't have a group of friends buy or build a bunch of housing in close proximity to start up a brand new community. So given how nobody trusts each other already and you can't just start a community with your friends, it's difficult getting going.

I'm not the right person to ask on how to fix these issues but it is worth thinking about.

VioletZer0 posted...

I've lived rural, urban and suburban. Although I have a preference for urban, rural living isn't bad.

But suburban living is complete dogwater. It sucks so bad to have to drive like 10 minutes to get out of the suburb and all you get for it is a yard and big house. But I don't care about having a big house and I'd much rather have places I can walk to. I don't need a yard, that's what the community park is for.

Yeah I feel like suburbs are the worst of both worlds. The isolated feeling of rural living without the true peace and quiet. The amenities of a city but without the ultra-convenience of walkability or the sense of community. I think rural living would mostly be bad though, like having to drive an hour to go to a full-service grocery store and that grocery probably being a Walmart.

I thought I wanted a yard but it's just turned into a big time sink (or it could be a money pit if you wanna save your time). I don't care to have perfectly manicured green grass but just keeping it mildly presentable is work. At the time I moved in I thought well it'll keep me from just playing video games all day, but then I developed more interests that the yard keeps me from doing. And really if I have to own a car anyway (which I don't mind), might as well take it to go on a hike and experience real nature when I want to go outside.

Damn_Underscore posted...

If people were open to the idea of community units there would be no need to propose them, they would already exist

Might as well not have activism for anything then, right? This is the problem I have with libertarian "the free market will decide" thinking. Lots of people simply don't know that better alternatives (not saying community units are a good example, just broadly speaking) exist, because there's been a lot of money put into propagandizing against certain things and making the status quo we know now seem like a normal and logical endpoint

It's worth noting that a big reason why I am asking is because like 10 years ago my sister and her wife started an initiative to start urban communities back up and it's still going strong.

The biggest boon by far was how much easier it made childcare for everyone and I think that bringing community units back will help with the birthrate issue.

Damn_Underscore posted...

If people were open to the idea of community units there would be no need to propose them, they would already exist

Ehhh, yes and no. Car-centric suburbanization was driven (pun not intended) by individuals' desires to embrace the supposed convenience and freedom a car could provide (spurred in no small part by propaganda from car and oil companies, but there was legitimate interest there), leading them to vote for development patterns that favoured the car. In that regard, yes, fragmented suburban non-communities can be said to be what people wanted, but a lot of the consequences of those design patterns weren't readily obvious to the people who just liked the face value of "I can drive right from my door to my destination!". The broader social impacts, the infrastructure costs, and the economic fragility that came from trying to make it so everyone could enjoy that convenience weren't considered in expressing those desires.

And now, of course, so many people have only ever known car dependence that they can't wrap their heads around alternatives being any better (see: the number of people that steadfastly believe that owning a car is the only way to be free or independent), so of course they aren't going to be in favour of changing the status quo.

It's kind of like the Internet: Pretty much everyone would agree that, on paper, having easier access to information and contact with people you care about is a good thing. Now that the Internet has made access to information too easy, though, you end up with misinformation that's impossible to counter, people becoming overwhelmed by such a massive deluge of information that they can't filter out what's important/true, and being constantly plugged into each others' lives has created some major problems.

One of the big drivers of suburbanization was also out of fear of nuclear war, they believed if they spread out the population then fewer people would die in the first strikes.

Even now, I've seen people suggest - without a hint of irony - that car-centric design is good because it'll make it harder for tanks to roll into cities if the US ever gets invaded. Apparently a land invasion of the US is a major threat worth considering?

People don't want to be forced to live/interact with other people. Living in the same building (apartment) is one with but forcing interaction crosses a line. And you could argue a job is forced interaction; this is really forcing people to create their own society. This honestly seems worse than suburbs

VioletZer0 posted...

Community units were a carryover from when we had villages which were essentially the same thing in function.

Except they're really not.

Community units are more like trying to emulate the tribal nomad society structure (especially in the prehistorical sense), without actually understanding why those systems worked, and trying to force them into scenarios where they almost certainly wouldn't.

ie, tribal structure generally worked because it was a pseudo family unit. Monogamous relationships didn't necessarily exist, children didn't necessarily have parents as much as they were raised by the tribe as a whole, people didn't really have possessions, and the main reason why you stuck to the task role the tribe assigned to you was because the alternative was dying.

Tribal structures are generally a subsistence-level community structure, that starts to fail the moment you have wealth inequality, or aspirations to be better.

A village is more like the currently existing town/individual structure, especially in urban neighborhoods. Where you may have multiple interacting systems (ie, a carpenter sells his work to a farmer in exchange for food, the farmer might be willing to trade a few eggs and some milk for some cloth from a tailor, etc) and some sense of communal unity (usually through the overarching control of religion). And again, it mainly worked because it was able to exist on a smaller scale. The main difference is just one of degree, and is mainly predicated on external trade, interaction, and travel.

The moment you start introducing global resources and technology into the mix, most of those types of tight social structures immediately become untenable. At least on a level most of us today are willing to accept.

It's the same reason why "communism" or "socialism" tends to work if you live on a commune, but fails once you extend beyond that scale. It's easier to pull off if you've limited your system to a handful of dedicated believers who have chosen to be part of the community, and who are willing to settle for little more than what they can make with their own hands or grow for themselves. It becomes more and more unworkable once you start moving beyond the concept of a barter economy and desire luxury items or conveniences.

VioletZer0 posted...

But suburban living is complete dogwater. It sucks so bad to have to drive like 10 minutes to get out of the suburb and all you get for it is a yard and big house. But I don't care about having a big house and I'd much rather have places I can walk to. I don't need a yard, that's what the community park is for.

The appeal of the suburbs is generally affluence allowing you to escape other people. It's the instinct to avoid the exact sort of communal living scenario you're proposing. It's why demographic data tends to show that when the economy is strong people choose to move to the suburbs, while when the economy is weak people are forced to move back into urban areas.

Make no mistake, the suburbs are terrible . They're one of the most inefficient methods of living we've ever invented as humans, with a huge infrastructure burden and certainly contributing to feelings of alienation (though the Internet has picked up that particular trend and run with it much faster and farther).

But the appeal is usually NOT having to live in constant close proximity to neighbors, while simultaneously living close enough to resources and services that wouldn't be available in a fully rural setting. I used to be able to reach nearly any store I could imagine, selling almost anything I could ever want, all in about 30 minutes worth of driving (though online shopping has kind of murdered this idea as so many specialty stores have now closed). I hear people say they had to drive 45 minute for groceries and 2 hours to see a movie. I cannot even fathom that idea. I wouldn't even want to drive 2 hours for life-saving surgery. I sure as fuck wouldn't be seeing any movies in the theater.

The appeal is owning rather than having to rent. The appeal is having the space to do things in your own yard rather than being forced to share communal property. Ultimately, the appeal is in BEING the individual, rather than the cog in the machine most of us secretly know/dread that we are.

Obviously, a lot of that kind of falls down in a poor economy where you can't necessarily afford those indulgences. But that's part of why it's aspirational in the first place.

Not without a community that Id grown up around and therefore share a familial bond with.

That never happened, so Id have to pass.

adjl posted...

And now, of course, so many people have only ever known car dependence that they can't wrap their heads around alternatives being any better (see: the number of people that steadfastly believe that owning a car is the only way to be free or independent), so of course they aren't going to be in favour of changing the status quo.

I always recommend people read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Motion-Wheel-Comes/dp/1635579368

It's incredibly interesting and gives a perspective most people lack. The idea that car culture has radically reshaped so many aspects of our lives, in ways we don't even think about. Like how it literally changed human social interaction (the concept of "dating" as we know it only exists because of the car). Or how "grocery stores" exist because cars made the idea of a separate store location where you can browse product tenable (replacing the "general store" and "mail order" models). And yes, cars essentially invented the suburbs. But they also made long-distance commerce viable in ways it never really was before (supplemented by overseas shipping and flight).

It's easy to say "Let's get rid of cars" or "Let's find an alternative to cars", but most people have no realistic perspective of just how much of our lives you'd need to change in order to do so without sacrificing huge chunks of your lifestyle.

Interestingly, smart phones and online interaction are currently doing a similar sort of reshaping of social culture, and could potentially become at least part of the solution towards minimizing the impact of cars (e.g. online shopping potentially rendering grocery stores obsolete), but that sort of change always takes generations to really set in (car culture took about 50 years and a post-war economic boom to really entrench), and usually requires the older generation to die off before they become fully established.

Or to put it another way, you're probably never going to be able to really do away with cars and suburbs until all the Boomers and Gen X are dead, and probably quite a few of the older Millennials as well.

It would not be my first choice, but depending on the specifics I might be amenable.

If the alternative was the streets then probably. Without an extreme alternative though?

Cupcake2006 posted...

Fuck no

Fuck no.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's easy to say "Let's get rid of cars" or "Let's find an alternative to cars", but most people have no realistic perspective of just how much of our lives you'd need to change in order to do so without sacrificing huge chunks of your lifestyle.

It's not that hard to get that perspective. Plenty of countries outside of the US aren't nearly as dependent on personal cars as is the norm in the US. A world entirely without cars and their cultural impact isn't realistic (for all their faults, they are useful tools), but one that isn't built around the assumption that everyone will be driving everywhere - to the overt detriment and often outright danger of anyone that doesn't - is not only possible, it's already been achieved many times over.

Now, is it possible in the US? That's a very harsh uphill battle when you've got people suing cities for promoting alternatives to driving. Americans have deep throated the myth of rugged individualism so far it's looped around for another go, and in doing so fixate almost exclusively on "what would personally be most convenient for me?" instead of larger-scale considerations like throughput and efficient land use.

It'd be a better idea if units were constructed to have enough space for a demi-family to have privacy. For example, if there's a public kitchen area if it has like 2 ovens and 4 microwaves or whatever but your private section is still like 500+ sqft.

Lokarin posted...

It'd be a better idea if units were constructed to have enough space for a demi-family to have privacy. For example, if there's a public kitchen area if it has like 2 ovens and 4 microwaves or whatever but your private section is still like 500+ sqft.

I feel like I misrepresented. You'd still have your own home, you'd just be obligated to paricipate in the community.

VioletZer0 posted...

I feel like I misrepresented. You'd still have your own home, you'd just be obligated to paricipate in the community.

you mean, like, maybe a cul-de-sac with a central feature that everyone contributes to or something?

Lokarin posted...

you mean, like, maybe a cul-de-sac with a central feature that everyone contributes to or something?

A cul de sac is an option yea.

No.

Hell no. I value my privacy. I would go crazy in a community unit.

OneEyedShinobi posted...

Hell no. I value my privacy. I would go crazy in a community unit.

That's your ninja way pororin

Pororin posted...

That's your ninja way pororin

Plus I love solitude.

OneEyedShinobi posted...

Plus I love solitude.

It's make stronger like homelander teehee

I would become homicidal living that close to so many people.

One of the biggest thing that bothers me about apartments and the like is just how many people are connected. Hundreds of people in what is technically one building. All it takes is for one idiot to start a house fire, and everyone else it at risk. And there's bound to be idiots out of those hundreds of people.

community of wives maybe

No privacy, no solitude, and conformism encouraged?

No thanks. I'm not averse to having friends, but I enjoy having time to myself to wind down and recharge. More importantly, conformism is just boring.

KalloFox34 posted...

No privacy, no solitude, and conformism encouraged?

No thanks. I'm not averse to having friends, but I enjoy having time to myself to wind down and recharge. More importantly, conformism is just boring.

No you still have privacy and solitude. You have your own housing unit and privacy within it.

You will just have less of it since people will be paying attention to you a lot more than normal.

Conformism is expected but a community is not overly rigid in this regard. If there is a legitimate grievance you have, you have the freedom to talk with them about it.

VioletZer0 posted...

No you still have privacy and solitude. You have your own housing unit and privacy within it.

You will just have less of it since people will be paying attention to you a lot more than normal.

Conformism is expected but a community is not overly rigid in this regard. If there is a legitimate grievance you have, you have the freedom to talk with them about it.

The Age of Privacy begins teehee

@vegy where is one piece poro?

VioletZer0 posted...

No you still have privacy and solitude. You have your own housing unit and privacy within it.

You will just have less of it since people will be paying attention to you a lot more than normal.

Conformism is expected but a community is not overly rigid in this regard. If there is a legitimate grievance you have, you have the freedom to talk with them about it.

That would make me neverous with all the attention.