The Los Angeles Eco Village - Term Paper Example

The Los Angeles Eco village The founding of eco-village is very important, thinking about the expansion, I want to explore the future of the eco-village wither by expanding their eco-village system geographically or they are planning to preserve their current society to enhance the living and built relationships. On the other hand, Childhood development society is one of the concerns that we need to overlook at the eco-village. However, children in the eco-village have been raised in different manners. There are many concerns whether the children are raised in good or bad way and whether they are allowed to use technology. Whether they are allowed to use technology or not, it is important to determine how they care about the child interaction and how the child development could change the growth of eco-villages. Living at the eco-village where the social relationship is important, I want to approve that it could change the personality and how it is different from living at the eco-village. The Los Angeles Eco village begun in 1993 January, and has since grown into a famous community in the region. It is located in the Korea town/Wilshire Center area in Los Angeles, approximately three miles on the west of the downtown development. The initiation of the LAEV, as it is commonly known, is a response for the need to offer affordable housing within the community of Los Angeles. Interestingly, 300,000 households within Los Angeles allocate 50% of their monthly income to the payment of rent (Laecovillage.org). LAEV, therefore, is a classic example of the continued efforts to build a solid platform for sustainable living in a city that is considered as economically unfriendly. Furthermore, this establishment emphasizes the desire to separate building and land ownership between the LAEV community and the nonprofit organizations. In my interview with a resident of the LAEV, the origin of the community depicts the reason behind the high cost of living within Los Angeles. The interviewee, Semrest, has a different outlook of the world having moved into the Eco village. The LAEV begun as a community project that had the hope to inspire the neighborhood and the surroundings at large with the model of their existence. The creation of the project was to allow not only catalyzing the economic imbalances but also the reducing of the long-term negative impact of the community on the environment. The reduced cost of living would be achievable through reducing the consumption of power and water sources. In the perception of Semrest, I discovered that despite the accomplishments of the LAEV, the ideas of the Eco village remain centralized to the individual project. The growth pattern within the community is skewed, as many opportunities arise to give room for the reuse of resources (Scanph.org). However, the community has a strong communal stewardship that instills deep democracy amongst the residents. The incorporation of the minority views gives room for the emergence of better decision-making procedures. In such communities, where the communal stewardship is a practice, the decisions of people are sufficiently satisfied in order to eliminate obstruction of democracy. In addition to the strategic planning and the casual dinner conversations, communication seems to be the lifeline of the eco village community. The communication amongst the members of the LAEV is a contrast of the mainstream settlements in which many people do not know who their neighbors are. In such communities, the problems are easily ignored, hence leading to the escalation of major communal crisis. The primary skill set of choice amongst many LAEV communities is the non-violent communication. As experienced in many war torn countries and corporate boardroom meetings, non-violent communication is responsible for building a deep sense of trust amongst the members of the community. By living in the eco village, Semrest indicates the perception of residents about the surrounding world changes. Many residents within this community, just like Semrest, have the desire to go out into the world and proclaim the message of communal stewardship (Scanph.org). The gist of the non-violent campaigns is to foster empathy both for other people and for the individuals. The communal spirit as depicted in the LAEV speaks about the underlying feelings and needs of all the parties in line with the democratic setting of the society living within this community. Therefore, when the culture of blame and shame gives way to the culture of compassion and honesty, LAEV activists hope that they will eliminate conflict. Childhood development in the Los Angeles Eco village is a public demonstration of sustainable community development. Besides instilling children with the vital tool of non-violent communication associated with low-income settlements, the LAEV has numerous programs and resources that encourage the early maturity of children. The community in these settlements believes in the sharing of resources and communal solution to individual problems. As children grow, they learn how to use the communal support as a means of reducing stress and making wise decisions on problems that hinder their comfortable daily living. Similarly, the community has a diverse set of population. In cohousing, the residents often find comfort in their sharing of such services as education and childcare. Many of the resources within this area are shared to instill the children with the need to share resources as they grow into adults. Consequently, children emulate what they take form their childhood environment (Linton, 5). The children raised in the eco village take these lessons into the broader society, campaigning for the need to embrace diversity and democracy across all of social classes. Given the fact that eco villages are a testimony to sustainable living, children raised in these areas may contribute largely to the development of more eco villages in the future. The principles applied in the raising of children translate into their future perception on the style of life they desire to live. The diversity of members living within the community ranges across gender, racial to ethnic backgrounds. Despite the fact that incomes are primarily low, I realize that the philosophy of life within this community makes it easier to address the problems encountered by each group of people. The skills instilled in children enable them to have the necessary resilience and courage to carry on with the activism associated with the community. As Semrest states, these essential life tools enable them to live in harmony. As the children grow, however, a number of challenges that may force them to abandon their social way of life and adopt new styles of life. During adolescence, peer pressure threatens to erode the basic social life skills that a child had when growing up. Nonetheless, LAEV has sufficient programs that enable the children to avoid possible pitfalls of peer pressure. Given the communal dinners and continuous meetings, the children learn the importance of the community in their lives. Despite the fact that there are indefinite plans of expanding the Los Angeles Eco village, the growth of numerous intentional settlements is a proof o f the growth of eco villages within Los Angeles (Heben, 37). Since the village model is significant, most groups have grown to embrace their diversity by forming intentional settlements around LA. Nevertheless, LAEV remains to be the largest intentional settlement in the region. Unlike the global villages, the eco villages have real relationships between resources and the people sharing these resources. Given the activism initiated by the residents of the LAEV community, the message of compassion and togetherness seems to sink across diverse residents within the region. Many individuals have the desire to reside in low-income settlement areas but have not had the chance to express their desire. The escalation of people having this desire has prompted the growth of many intentional settlements that have similar settings as those of the LAEV. In contrast to the LAEV, the upcoming intentional villages are based on certain backgrounds such as education, religion, and culture. These settlements do not have diverse backgrounds as those of the LAEV. Living in the LAEV presents the community with the opportunity to share their resources. This is one reason why many of the residents living in this region view this constituency as the best placed to spend their entire lives. The creation of affordable housing systems makes it easier for people to live in this city, given that many residents of the Wilshire district were majorly low-income earners. In addition to that, the creation of the settlement scheme in downtown LA presented the community with a chance to initiate sustainable living practices to cope with the pollution associated with this region. Equally important to the financial cost of living is the sustainable community that LAEV presents to its residents. The LAEV project has a unique way of eliminating self-reliance and replacing it with communal reliance. As stated by Semrest, the spirit of sharing is one of the greatest qualities that make him like living in LAEV. During the shared meals, they have the chance to make their decisions. Having being in existence since 1993, the community believes is old enough to uphold its sustainable community practice while maintaining the affordable range of housing (Linton, 15). Given the development of this settlement, many people have come to embrace the ideologies behind its existence. Semrest says that there is need to have more trust in handling the issues related to the community. While acknowledging the steps taken since his arrival in the settlement 12 years ago, he further says that the community should explore more ways to make life more comfortable for all the members in the settlement. The lack of adequate willingness to be vulnerable and improper intimacy levels makes interaction strenuous amongst the residents. This mentality makes the community have decisions that are considerate to the residents only, while overriding the decisions that accompany vulnerability. As established as the LAEV is, the establishment still requires more financial leverage (Laecovillage.org). It is an achievement for the community to enjoy a low cost of living but the community lacks enough finances to initiate modern communal facilities. With the growth in technology, there is increasing need to familiarize the children with technology and its impact on the economic and social well being of the surrounding environment. One of the reasons why many children from these settlements fail to compete against children from established backgrounds is the lack of exposure to technology. Technology presents an opportunity for the automation of many operations within the community, as it encourages the growth of activism through social media platforms. In addition to that, economic reforms within the settlement will materialize with the increase in financial assistance from the government and the non-government organizations. With the luxury of displacing costs onto ecosystems and distant peoples, the relationship between people and the resources remains elusive. Many jobs within the eco village are ordinary. The main reason why eco villagers live on a fraction of what other citizens spend is that they engage in extensive innovative forms of co ownership. Semrest states that the shared resources, workshops, and tools are a major source of savings for the community. I learn that a shared attraction for sustainability is not the only factor that holds the community together. Instead, the involvement of the community in politics and governance plays an important role in emphasizing the ambition of eco villages. In conclusion, the LAEV bases its success on communication and communal stewardship. Through these components, the community develops creative expressions of different personalities. It is one thing for the eco villagers to work for the benefit of other people and another to work for the sake of their own happy lives. Works Cited Heben, Andrew. Tent City Urbanism. San Bernardino, CA: A. Heben, 2013. Print. Los Angeles Eco-Village. N.p., 2015. Web. Retrieved 22 June 2015 from http://laecovillage.org/. Linton, Joe. Los Angeles Eco-Village. Los Angeles Eco-Village. N.p., 2015. Web. Retreived 22 June 2015 from //laecovillage.wordpress.com/. Scanph.org,. Southern California Association Of Nonprofit Housing (SCANPH). N.p., 2015. Web. Retrieved 22 June 2015 from www.scanph.org. Read More