I spend one week a year hanging out with Jewish hippies on a hilltop in New Hampshire at the National Havurah Committee‘s Summer Institute. It’s a really lovely space that largely exists outside the bounds of institutionalized Jewish community, a space that is truly cross-generational and empowers people of all ages and background (I run the kitchen, monitoring kosher and food need concerns) to lead, teach, and learn.
Part of what makes Institute tick is the series of workshops given by attendees on a wide variety of topics in which they have personal interest or expertise (in that order). On Tuesday I had the pleasure of attending a workshop on the topic of Jewish co-housing, a topic that seems totally stereotypical for a hippie retreat but is also of interest to me as a planner. Interestingly, attendance at the workshop was split just about 50/50 between people my age (twentysomethings) and people at or approaching retirement age, with virtually no one in between. And it was the older folks who tended to be more vocal, perhaps because the need for them is more urgent–many of us younger people like the idea of sharing housing with friends to some extent, but for those approaching an age where physical concerns and safety become paramount, having others around to help out becomes almost a necessity.
Several of the older folks in attendance did, in fact, express that they had planned to be dragged out of their own homes or apartments feet first when the time came, but had more recently come around to having more flexibility on the topic of housing as they aged. And while the older folks are Havurah are certainly a group that exhibits selection bias–these are aging hippies, after all, and they have, as a group, willingly handed over leadership to my generation, which is EXTRAORDINARILY rare in Jewish communal contexts–I found it a powerful demonstration of the ways people can come together across generations to work for better housing options.
And the key word there is indeed options. This was a crew for whom, for a variety of reasons, the “traditional” single-family home, and to a large extent the nuclear family model that underpins it, does not work. That the nuclear family is declining in America is conventional wisdom to the point of cliche, but most of the discussion about the future of American housing has focused on Millenials and our alleged desire for multifamily urban housing. But we’re not the only ones looking for options beyond the single-family home. Surely, many older Americans are stubborn and set in their ways (I have a grandmother who is very set on staying in her house despite a total inability to care for it, and, increasingly, herself); but perhaps there’s significant room to articulate a positive vision of flexible, semi-shared housing that is neither an increasingly unsafe residence nor a nursing home or care facility.
The discussion of Jewish co-housing was particularly poetic given an article I read later that night laying out the sale of Newton, MA’s historic Mishkan Tefillah synagogue to Boston College. The person who lead the session is actually from Newton; a widow, she had tried to attract various people to share her large, expensive house in that wealthy town, but had come to the conclusion that co-housing simply wasn’t going to happen in Newton. And here comes the news that a 300-family synagogue–significantly larger than the perfectly functional communities I grew up in–is selling their property because they can’t financially sustain it anymore. Why? Because the shul (Yiddish for synagogue) is shrinking and because the property they built on back in the day is 24 freaking acres.
24 acres! Even the largest synagogue, with parking lots built to accommodate thousands of worshipers on the three peak days of the High Holidays, could only ever use a fraction of that space. The Globe article notes that the site came with significant legal restrictions on use, so using some of it for desperately needed housing might have been tricky, but I can’t help but wonder how things might have been different if places of worship–Jewish and otherwise, though the need for walkability is greater in an observant Jewish context–had thought more creatively about the future housing needs of their communities.
As I observed on Facebook in relation to the news a couple of weeks ago that Kehillath Israel–another Conservative congregation located in fairly urban, but still expensive, Brookline–is revamping their facility to accommodate senior housing, there’s a crying need for congregations to think about the housing needs of their membership. Suburban congregations whine constantly about how no young families move to the neighborhood–but the entire system of suburban homeownership is designed to benefit existing homeowners while pricing out newcomers. In towns like Newton (or Sharon, where my partner grew up), single-family zoning and the emphasis on homeownership make it virtually impossible to replicate religious–or any–community across generations. And it’s not all about some Millenial preference for cities or urban living; it’s about inflexible housing stock that can only accommodate one vision of familial, economic, and social being.
So yes, congregations like Mishkan Tefilah have doomed themselves. But those choices were made decades ago, in many cases right as the congregations moved out from the areas of first and second settlement. And that’s where we come back to the promise that I think our little hippie workshop on co-housing showed. There is a possibility of cross-generational cooperation on housing issues. There are common threads between what young people need (or want) and what older people need. There is a possibility of rebuilding aging and dying communities by thinking creatively about the founding assumptions that shaped them. All of this would require significant creativity and a willingness to take on conventional wisdom and fundamental assumptions about housing and family structure that I’m not sure everyone’s ready for. And surely, some people, and some communities, will prefer dying on the hill of the suburban model to living on a different model. But let’s not give up hope for reconciliation just yet.
The Mishkan Tefila site is very interesting because of the history of the site. The site—valued today at nearly $20m—was sold for $10000 in 1954, or the equivalent of $80,000 in today’s dollars. It sits in one of the largest plots of open land in the Boston area, and while it’s not next to a transit station itself, the overall area of open space is near the D Line (which was still a conventional railroad in 1954!). It just has a 24 acre hole in the middle.
I’d love to get my hands on the deed and some of the history from the ’50s. Someone knew someone at the state to get 24 acres of land for a song. That doesn’t just happen …
The building, controversial at the time kicked off open space conservation in Newton. It followed the post-war migration of Jews in Boston out of Roxbury-Dorchester-Mattapan (the original building still stands) which continued to accelerate and climaxed in the late 1960s as racial and religious housing laws clashed with the overall issues of the ’60s (more here). If the Commonwealth had its druthers, it would work with MT and/or BC to assure that when the deed is up after a century, it would be returned to the state at an inflation-adjusted price. Open space is an important resource in encouraging denser urbanization (and Newton is certainly culpable in steadfastly refusing to densify), but this was originally state land, it should benefit the state, not one religious community or educational institution.
Do you think BC is buying this land to use as parking for the next 39 years? Or because in 39 years, when the deed is up, they can tap in to its full value? And in the short term, why should the parking lots not be torn up and allowed to return to a more natural state? Does parking really count as an educational use?
A man after my own heart, citing two books that are sitting on my shelf. I’ll have to go back and look at _The American Synagogue_ one of these days; I knew Paula Hyman personally growing up in New Haven and took a class with Jack Wertheimer at JTS. But anyhow…
Totally agreed that the land should revert to the state and BC using it as parking and auxiliary offices is a mockery of the original charter. Incidentally, I was in Ithaca last week and encountered (actually stayed in) a suburban strip mall occupied partially by Cornell auxiliary offices, which led to a fairly absurd situation where there were several rows of *permitted* parking in the (way huge) strip mall lot.
I do wonder why this was state land in the first place. The old topo maps don’t show anything special. And there must have been some kind of an underhanded deal to get the shul the land at such a low price. I read Gamm’s book last year and came away with just a really sad feeling about how the richer members of the Dorchester and Roxbury shuls essentially abandoned the poorer ones. I wonder how many of those people and their descendants ended up just leaving the Jewish community. Probably most. But that’s a story for another day.