CO-OPERATIVE HOMES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5655, 28 August 1896, Page 6 (Supplement)

CO-OPERATIVE HOMES.

TO. THE EDITOR.

Sic, — The question of co-operative housekeeping has been discussed in your columns to a considerable extent lately. There ' can be no doubt but that many of our social customs are ready for change. The problem appears to bo how to secure the best combination of the present individual 1 system with the social advantages of cooperation. The ordinary English family requires facilities for private as well as social life, and I think the combination may be effected by having a central dining and social hall, surrounded by suitable buildings in form of separate houses for married couples, with blocks of apartments for single people. An acre and a half of Land would be sufficient for the erection of buildings and would provide accommodation for forty single men and forty single Svomen and twenty families, say one hundred and fifty people in all. The land (within city boundaries), buildings and f nrniture would cost about .£IO,OOO altogether, the rentals would be about .£IOOO, or 10 per cent, so if a syndicate were formed which could secure the money at 6 per cent, the balance of rent beiug devoted to extinguishing" the principal, the land and buildings would be free from encumbrance in about fifteen years. The buildings, as designed, include a furnished room for each single man or single woman, with a bathroom for every five persons; separate houses for married people, ranging from two to four rooms, with bathroom, but without kitchen ; a workroom and a music-room for ladies ; a billiard-room and smoking-room for men with a central dining-hall, which would also be a social room common to all. The kitchen and servants' rooms are over the dining-hall, and the cost of living might either be co-operative, taking the expenses at the end of each month, and dividing per adult, or the syndicate might charge a specified sum. In auy case the cost and worry of living would be materially reduced, and a combination of the individual and social systems tried on a sufficiently extensive scale. Married people would furnish their own houses, and woxxld have their own sitting-rooms, where all the advantage of private life could be obtained. They could receive their friends as at present, while at the same time they would participate in the advantages of the social system. In my own mind, it would be better managed by a syndicate, or. better still, if possible, by the municipality, in which latter case the money could be obtained at a less rate of interest, and in the hands of a competent manager the property would soon be a source of revenue to the community. I suggest, the idea for the consideration of your readers, and if a few gentlemen like to consider the question of a syndicate, shall be glad to submit plans and details. — I am, &c, PRACTICAL.