How this village
could become real.

What would it feel like to live here?

I picture a village with a common house where you can usually find someone to talk to, gardens and workshops, places to host music and larger gatherings, and quieter corners where you can be by yourself. Some people would live here all year; others might come for a season or a short stay. Visitors could add a lot to the life of the place, while residents would still need somewhere that feels like home when a gathering is in full swing.

Within that village, we could have different kinds of homes. You might want your own small home and kitchen, or prefer a private bedroom in a household that shares more of its daily life. Sharing a bedroom is another choice altogether, and we shouldn’t build a plan around assuming people want it. The amount of private space, the walking routes and the shared rooms all affect both the cost and how comfortable we’d feel living together.

Meals are a good example of something we can shape to suit the people here. Songaia describes a shared food program with common meals and a stocked pantry. We could explore something similar, pay for cooking on selected days, or have a more informal open table. I’d like someone to be able to bring their own food, save a plate for later or eat at home without that becoming a source of tension.

Finding a good beginning

A camp or retreat could give us useful things from the start: a kitchen, a dining hall, guest accommodation and space for people to gather. It’s an appealing route because we might be able to enjoy those places while adapting buildings and adding homes. But a cabin used for summer weekends may need substantial work before someone can live there comfortably all year. Existing buildings only save us money if they’re suitable for the uses we actually need.

A property with several existing homes could make the residential side easier to begin. We would then need to find a good way to add shared spaces, guest stays and gatherings. A beautiful residential property with no room or permission for that wider life could leave us with a very different project from the one we set out to create.

Building on raw or lightly improved land would give us more freedom in the layout and design. The challenge is that water, wastewater, access, power and the first shared facilities can require a lot of money before many people have a home there. We’re keeping this route alongside reuse so that the compromises of an existing property don’t become the only possibilities we consider.

The Starter Guide to Intentional Communities also asks a question worth keeping open: could some of this life be created with an existing community? A willing partnership might give us useful buildings and experience to build on. It would still need to leave room for the gay naturist culture, privacy and lasting homes we’re imagining, and for the people already there to choose the arrangement too. We haven’t identified such a partner; it’s another possibility to consider alongside buying and developing a property.

We don’t have to finish the whole village before anyone arrives. An early group could help establish it, and a smaller residential opening could grow as later stages are built. For each stage, I want us to be able to show the homes and shared spaces people could use, the work still ahead and the money available to complete it. We should also know what happens if the next stage takes longer than expected. Moving onto a building site, opening permanent homes and hosting the first large gathering may happen at different times.

Choosing a place for the whole village

We’ve reopened the location search because the village gives us more to consider than a pleasant place to buy land. We’re comparing regions alongside actual properties: a camp with useful commons, a residential property with room to grow, or land where the whole layout could be designed together. Riverside, Tucson, Eugene and Durham are our current starting points for a focused property search, alongside alternatives with different seasonal lives and ways to begin.

The important question is whether a particular property can accommodate the whole mix of homes, guest stays, gatherings, food service and productive work. Permission for a campground or a group of houses answers only part of that. We also need to describe the naturist culture and intended activities honestly, rather than assume that calling the project a club settles the rules.

The location guide explains the places getting closer attention, their appeal and compromises, and what we have found about other suggestions. We haven’t chosen a property, and a stronger opportunity could change where we look.

What affordability will depend on

One of the biggest lessons from the working budgets is how much the source of the starting money matters. Buying land and making it ready to live on is expensive, even when the individual homes are modest. If most of that money is borrowed, the regular payments have to cover the loan as well as running the village. Gifts or capital that can stay in the project for a long time could lead to a different monthly cost, depending on what repayment or return is expected.

We’ve been comparing smaller and larger openings, including what happens when they have the same amount of funding available before borrowing. More residents can share the cost of a kitchen, maintenance and other services, but accommodating them also costs more to build. A larger opening doesn’t automatically become more affordable. We need to compare the actual homes and services people would receive, along with the money available to create them.

Guest stays, events and businesses could contribute income, and they could be a wonderful part of village life. They also need staff, food, cleaning, maintenance and places for people to stay. We’re testing what happens when bookings are weaker than hoped and keeping those costs in the account before treating visitor income as help with residents’ bills.

I want people with fewer resources to have a real place in this. Some of us might choose to contribute more, through gifts or agreed support for living costs. We haven’t asked for pledges or chosen an arrangement. We need to explain what each payment would mean, including whether it buys a home, lends money to the project or helps without an expectation of repayment. If money is meant to come back later, the plan has to show where it could come from. We don’t yet have a resident price to offer.

Who would keep the village running?

It’s easy to picture friends cooking together or spending an afternoon in the garden. It takes more thought to make sure dinner, cleaning, repairs and essential transport are covered when someone is ill, away or simply wants a break. Our operating plans are starting to put hours and responsibilities against those tasks, including preparation and cleanup around a big gathering.

One arrangement to explore is for residents to keep their own jobs, pensions or other income while the village pays people to cover core services. Some residents might want those jobs; others might run a workshop, café or another business of their own. An income-sharing community would be a different choice, with much more of our economic lives joined together. Being interested in Uncommon Ground doesn’t tell us which of those arrangements someone wants.

In its Communities Directory account, Bryn Gweled describes the strain of managing its property through volunteer committees and considering whether to hire a manager. That’s useful to keep in mind alongside the more appealing work. Someone still has to keep the accounts, arrange repairs and organize cover. There should be room to contribute skills without quietly acquiring a permanent job, and the plan needs to work when the person who usually organizes everything is away.

Visiting volunteers could contribute a lot, but someone also has to welcome them, teach the work and coordinate their stay. Coweeta Heritage Center’s Directory account describes pausing very short volunteer visits until it had more help running the program. We should include that work in the budget before counting the help it might bring.

Living outdoors through the seasons

For me, the appeal of the land is being able to enjoy it naked as part of everyday life. Climate will shape that experience. The Tucson weather normals show why Pima is appealing for milder winters and why summer heat needs serious attention. Louisa’s station record suggests a warm-season outdoor life with a real winter, while Ithaca’s points toward cooler summers and a much longer period when warm indoor connections would matter. These are regional starting points; shade, wind and the layout of a property can change how a day feels.

I can imagine enjoying a sunny winter room, a deep shaded porch or a garden path with places to stop along the way. We should explore which seasonal life people would actually want, including time spent indoors. A future visit could help us experience a quiet morning, an uncomfortable afternoon or a wet day for ourselves. Nobody should have to prove their commitment to naturism by putting up with discomfort.

Making good use of the land

I’d like the village to grow food, care for its surroundings and give people space to make and repair things. Gardens, orchards and workshops could be important parts of living here, and there’s room to explore permaculture, natural building and tools that make the work easier. We can begin with a manageable amount and expand as we learn what the land supports and what people want to do. The Directory includes communities that put working land in the care of particular growers. That could let farming become a serious part of our life without expecting every resident to be a farmer.

The working plan starts with dependable staple supplies, stored essentials, a garden we can maintain and backup for the services we most need during an outage. Growing more food could make us less dependent on outside supplies, but it also takes water, equipment and continuing work. We’re keeping track of those costs rather than assuming a garden or solar panels will pay the housing bills.

Dancing Rabbit’s building account in the Directory describes using natural and salvaged materials alongside conventional construction, depending on what was available and what worked. I’d like us to explore those possibilities without assuming that doing the work ourselves makes it inexpensive. A method needs to suit the climate, the people building it and the people who will maintain it. Comfortable, accessible homes matter as much as the appeal of a building technique.

Being able to stay as life changes

Affordability, aging and care need to be considered together. A place that looks inexpensive could become difficult to live in if every appointment requires a long drive or paid trip. For someone who needs HIV care or other ongoing treatment, we would need to understand the actual care options and continuity of access, privately with that person and their chosen helpers. Getting home afterward matters as much as getting to the appointment.

Valverde Commons makes a useful distinction in its Directory account: its residents want to support one another as they age, while being clear that they are not healthcare professionals. I’d like that same honesty here. Friendship, shared meals and practical help can matter enormously, but any promise of regular care needs people, funding and an arrangement we can depend on.

The same care belongs in the housing and ownership arrangements. I’d like residents to have a meaningful voice whether they rent or invest, and to feel secure at home if their ability to work or join activities changes. We need to work through that in the agreements, alongside a fair way to leave. Getting to know each other through visits can help us decide whether to live together; once someone is at home, wanting a quieter life shouldn’t mean having to earn their place all over again.

Learning from other communities

A prospective member encouraged us to read the 2016 Communities Directory, including the stories and lessons around the listings. It has given us much more to work with. Communities have built shared lives around private homes, farms, retreats and businesses, with very different arrangements for money and decisions. Their accounts help us ask what we would actually be choosing, beyond the appeal of living among friends.

The stories about starting communities are especially useful because some describe plans that didn’t work out. In Jenny Pickerill and Ruth Hayward’s accounts, bringing in a housing partner helped a group acquire land, but the terms later changed in ways many original participants couldn’t accept or afford. Other groups spent years meeting without agreeing on what they were trying to build. I want us to get clear enough to make progress, while continuing to ask whether each agreement serves the life that brought us together.

The money questions become quite personal. Celo’s account describes property interests that could be sold only to another member or to the community itself. That can be a deliberate way to preserve a community’s purpose. It also means thinking carefully about someone who needs to leave: how much they could recover, who would pay it and how long it might take. A written value for a person’s share doesn’t itself provide the cash to buy it back. People should understand that before putting their savings into a place they hope to call home.

We also need arrangements that survive ordinary changes in people’s lives. Vine & Fig Tree describes its earlier community coming apart for several reasons, including the landowning couple’s divorce and members moving closer to work and schools. I want us to think about those possibilities while everyone is getting along: whether residents could stay if an owner needed to sell, and whether the location still works as people’s needs change.

On decisions, the variety is encouraging. N Street’s account describes renters and homeowners participating equally, with a voting option after a defined effort to reach consensus. Other communities give smaller groups responsibility for particular areas or leave more choices to households. We haven’t chosen a system. I’d like to try the possibilities against decisions we can picture, such as changing the guest calendar or borrowing for a building, and see how they would work when people disagree.

Jeff Golden’s reflections on Common Fire make another useful distinction: a group can be good at talking deeply about feelings and still struggle to settle an immediate problem. A concern about unwanted contact, a missed commitment or a disputed expense needs a clear response. People should be able to raise it privately and be heard fairly, including when the person involved is a founder or major contributor. Repairing a relationship may help, but it shouldn’t require anyone to share more of their private life than they want to.

Breitenbush’s description caught another part of the life I want to preserve: setting aside time when the guest operation closes and the community has time together. Visitors and gatherings could bring a great deal of joy here, but living in the village shouldn’t mean being on duty as a host whenever you step outside. We’re making room in the planning for quieter resident spaces and time that we keep for ourselves, including the cost of those choices.

These examples make me more interested in working out the details with the people who might live here. I want us to be able to disagree, decline an activity, end a relationship or ask for help without fearing that belonging depends on keeping everyone happy. Close friendships matter, and so do agreements that still make sense when friendship is strained.

Where the research goes from here

Over the next few months, the useful work is to bring these choices into a more detailed opening plan, compare suitable properties and replace the largest cost assumptions with estimates for the work we would actually need. We’ll need professional advice on permissions, infrastructure, ownership and the intended activities, as well as people willing and able to run the place. None of that has been secured yet.

The current location guide and dated earlier property comparisons are available below. We’ve reopened the search around the village as a whole, because comparisons made for an earlier version of the project don’t settle where this one could work. The old rankings and numerical targets are historical research, rather than requirements for choosing our home. Our current recommendation is to choose somewhere other than Florida for this village, because of the additional care and support burdens. The Florida explanation sets out the evidence, its real strengths and what could make us reconsider.