My experience of community, both as a designer and as a resident, has led me to believe that different population sizes create different social pressures on the residents, and a variety of behaviour patterns emerge. Family - about 7 people This size allows every member to have a fairly equal `say'. Most people feel comfortable working in a group of this size. It is not essential to have a leader. Planning can be a genuine group process. Disagreements have to be worked through for the group to be able to continue. In intentional community, people often have the expectation of a family-like bond between members. However, once a group gets larger than around 7 people, this becomes difficult. It is getting too big for `equal say', direct communication or participation in all decision making processes. Also, even though a diverse group may have a strong desire to work, eat and live together it is often hard to find consensus between different cultures, age groups, couples and singles. Clan or Hamlet - about 30 people This size equates to several families, and provides increased opportunities for improved economic viability, social interchange, and self-reliance in food. More skills can be exchanged. Tools too expensive for a single family to buy can be group purchased and shared. Bulk-buying becomes a viable and sensible option. Good relations are necessary more between the families than between individuals. There are many successful examples of co-housing projects with this size population in Denmark. Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett in `Co-housing' found that the great majority of residents in the Danish co-housing projects had settled on a size of 18-25 households. My own experience of these projects is that this number of households averaged out at around 40 people per project. Larger co-housing projects seem to favour a clustering concept, gaining the favourable economic aspects of a larger population but recognising that smaller groupings offer social advantages. Village — 90 or more At this size individuals cannot behave in a family relationship pattern. People will have many friends, but can also `afford' to have the odd person they strongly dislike. It is not possible to have a say in all decisions, and complete consensus is rare. Conclusions Being very closely involved in Crystal Waters, I have been able to observe the growth patterns. It was interesting to watch the population outgrow the extended `family' size and closely bond into a `clan'. In those days the small population lived in primitive conditions: they had very basic toilet facilities and had to heat water on an open fire for showers. Everybody had to co-operate and work together to create some comfort. Permanent friendships were formed — everybody was dependent on each other. But as the population increased past about 40, friction started to occur. New arrivals were seen almost as intruders and it became more and more difficult to maintain close relationships. The period was full of internal politics and conflicts. What was happening as the group moved beyond clan size was that people began to form smaller social clusters, based on lifestyle and attitude. This process is possibly unavoidable in any development which outgrows the `clan' stage. However, by recognising and expecting this period it may be easier to accept, and for residents to work it through as a group. At Crystal Waters by the time the population reached about 90, calm returned (although `calm' is always a relative term!). Interestingly, few communities exist with a permanent population of between 40 and 90 people. Severely summarised extract from Max Lindegger's |