Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Re-Emergence of Self-Managed Co-Housing in Europe A Critical Review of Co-Housing Research.
The Re-Emergence of Self-Managed Co-Housing in Europe A Critical Review of Co-Housing Research.
Urban Studies
2016, Vol. 53(10) 2023–2040
Ó Urban Studies Journal Limited 2015
The re-emergence of self-managed Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
co-housing in Europe: A critical DOI: 10.1177/0042098015586696
usj.sagepub.com
review of co-housing research
Lidewij Tummers
TU Delft (NL), Netherlands
Abstract
This article reviews a decade of co-housing studies and publications, to identify major themes and
research gaps. Generally, co-housing is seen as a promising model for urban development, and
most empirical case studies report active and diverse communities, creating and maintaining
affordable living environments. However, numbers are small and there is as yet no quantitative
evidence to substantiate the claims. Nevertheless, important lessons can be drawn from co-
housing as an integrated practice to meet today’s societal and environmental challenges. Rather
than its utopian ambitions, the frictions with current institutional frameworks point the way to
transform these into more adequate agents of development.
Keywords
alternative housing, co-housing, planning culture, spatial planning, urban quality
for sustainable and inclusive development The lack of verifiable quantitative data does
(Krokfors, 2012; Maury and Bernard, 2009). little to support the ‘believers’ who claim
Collaborative housing initiatives fit in the that co-housing is ‘the third way of housing’
societal trends of decentralisation, increased of the (near) future. On the other hand, the
self-reliability and demand for participation case for ‘cynics’ who tend to dismiss the co-
and custom-made solutions. The incentive housing trend as catering for a privileged
and planning context varies from country to minority is at present even less articulated.
country, although it tends always to chal- The lack of quantitative data is partly due to
lenge housing policy and planning cultures the wide and fuzzy boundaries of co-hous-
in significant ways. In 21st-century Europe, ing. The review found that publications con-
the individual owner-occupied suburban cern different forms of co-housing (see Table
household unit is embedded deeply into 1), and that this variety, the uniqueness of
planning culture and practice, including, for each project, is often emphasised, leading to
example, standardised plots and building the question of what holds them together?
materials; density and transport policies; Which are seen as key- components for what
and legal and financial instruments that co-housing actually is? The second section
strictly separate private (individual) and examines different conceptualisations of ‘co-
public (institutional) concerns. Confronted housing’ related to the stakeholder perspec-
with cooperative ‘grass-root’ housing initia- tive or academic discipline and seeks to
tives, planning authorities need to review the understand its key components.
urban development and planning processes, The conclusions highlight some of the
reposition stakeholders and formulate new structural drivers behind, or against, co-
criteria for land use (Droste and Knorr- housing, and the challenges co-housing cre-
Siedow, 2012; Fedrowitz and Galling, 2003; ates for spatial planning. The integration of
Krämer and Kuhn, 2009). The emergence of co-housing in urban development processes
co-housing initiatives has also encouraged new raises questions that go beyond the initia-
professional consultancies that facilitate colla- tives’ struggle for realisation. Before answer-
borative planning, cooperative housing prop- ing such questions, again it needs to be clear
erty and finance. Co-housing in the European what is understood by ‘co-housing’. If the
context is ‘increasingly helped along in a top- evidence from single cases is underpinned
down fashion’ (Krokfors, 2012: 310). with systematic and quantitative studies, co-
In this paper I review recent co-housing housing can indeed be relevant for present-
research in Europe, searching for the con- day European cities that are struggling with
ceptual underlying framework and how it social cohesion and the necessity for com-
provides evidence for the need to further munity organising. Co-housing practices can
expand co-housing. The first section dis- also point the way in which planning prac-
cusses (European) publications since 2000 in tices and paradigms need to change.
five thematic clusters: empirical studies; The paper is based on desktop research/
social change; designing community; neigh- literature review conducted between July
bourhood development and emerging topics. 2011 and July 2014, and a number of semi-
The literature review reveals that factual nars, meetings and conferences during that
assessment of the volume and performance same period. The research also involved
of co-housing projects is rare. Despite inten- numerous project visits, providing empirical
sified research, it remains unclear to what evidence to the written sources. However,
extent co-housing initiatives de facto con- the analyses of case studies is beyond
tribute to social cohesion and healthy cities. the scope of this paper. The author uses
Tummers
Table 1. International terminology for collaborative housing (Bresson, 2013; Tummers, 2015).
Note: Diversité des expériences qu’on regroupe sous l’expression «habitat alternatif», diversité qui se traduit par un foisonnement terminologique. A partir
de l’ensemble des termes utilisés dans les diverses langues, 3 idées ressortent: CO, AUTO, ECO (S. Bresson, Atelier Alter Prop, Tours, 5 July 2013) [The diverse
appearances of ‘alternative housing’ is expressed in a varied terminology. Based on the glossary of terms used internationally, three key concepts stand out: CO,
Auto and ECO (Translation l. Tummers)].
2025
2026 Urban Studies 53(10)
Cooperatives
carpooling
WECONOMY carsharing
degrowth
Leasing water management
Sharing
Energy-
community Coops renewable sources
gardens
Slow Food CLIMATE CHANGE
New Adaptation
Commons mitigation
repair shop Co-
Housing Rurbanization
recycling
DIY society
Energy Heat island
poverty
of households
Flexible Transition Town
Labour
Gender Mainstreaming
EQUAL CITIZENSHIP
Aging populations
‘co-housing’ for the wider range of coopera- and publications by the residents and/or
tive self-managed housing initiatives and advisors of the projects themselves.
‘cohousing’ for the projects based on and Networks such as Experimentcity,
belonging to the Cohousing networks. Gemeinschaftliches Wohnen, Habicoop,
Omslag, Diggersanddreamers, Samenhuizen
and kollektivhus issue publications besides
Literature review: Main research
maintaining websites and digital fora,
themes which have become important resources
Since the last inventory by Vestbro (2000), for the implementation of projects. The
co-housing research has intensified.2 Most second cluster addresses demographic
of the approximately 50 publications studied change, associating co-housing with mov-
are geared to the project-scale, trying to ing away from traditional family struc-
identify typical development stages, financial tures, the emancipation of women and the
or organisational models, residents’ profiles, ageing population of Europe. Cluster 3
etc. The aim of the present review is to high- looks at the architecture of self-governed
light the underlying assumptions and iden- co-housing, looking for design criteria that
tify the major issues that the studies contribute to social cohesion and interac-
address, to explore if there is a ‘body of tion, or focusing on the design process,
knowledge’ rather than a fragmented col- underlining the importance of participa-
lection of case studies. Five clusters of the- tion, and cluster 4 concerns the larger-
matics stand out. First, empirical studies scale, neighbourhood regeneration and
Tummers 2027
strategies for urban development. Finally, development in a wider sense. Provided its
some new fields emerge, notably research qualities are critically reviewed, co-housing
on the legal and economic aspects. projects can make planners understand the
new demands for living environments
including, for example, renewable energy
Cluster 1: Advocacy; guides and case sources.
studies Empirical studies often see co-housing
Generally, self-initiated clustered housing, initiatives as part of societal change, surpass-
with individual and shared spaces, is seen as ing the project level. For example, Metcalf
a way to create otherwise unaffordable or describes the history of eco-villages as that
inaccessible services, such as care for very of ‘intentional communities where environ-
young and ageing persons, gardens, play- mental sustainability is sought alongside
grounds and child-friendly environments; with social justice, peace, etc.’ (Metcalf,
healthy and off-grid energy systems, car or 2004: 10) and hopes his ‘rules of thumb’ help
equipment pooling, and so on. Co-housing ‘intentional communities to become a model
is also a way to establish local identities for sustainable living’ (Metcalf, 2004: 88).
under globalisation, and to realise new forms Meltzer places the highly ideologically
of community, naoborskip or commons, to steered communities in the periphery of soci-
combat solitude or make room for alterna- ety (and planning) (Meltzer, 2000). Lafond
tive values, see Figure 1 (Fromm, 2000; writes in the ‘lessons learned’ chapter of his
Jarvis, 2011; Krokfors, 2012; Lietaert, 2012; handbook: ‘Community oriented housing
Vestbro, 2010). projects really only take on life through their
Co-housing networks have published residents . More and more people sense
numerous guides and handbooks, often writ- the impeding crisis, and look for shared,
ten by or with the help of architects or plan- local responses, seeing a great place to begin
ners. Although not strictly academic in their own home!’ (Lafond, 2012: 185).
research, they provide considerable informa- Parasote argues that collective
tion about the current trend. Virtually every Autopromotion (self-developed housing) is
handbook underlines that every community not just constructing a building but also a
and therefore each project is unique. service to society (Parasote, 2011). However,
Nevertheless, during the planning process a the justification of such claims needs more
number of recurrent difficulties can be iden- than empirical evidence in the form of single
case studies. Illustrative is the Leeds-based
tified: obtaining land, forming a group,
co-housing project LILAC, described by
planning permission and finance are
Chatterton as being ‘the first of a new post-
amongst the most outstanding. The French
carbon concept that integrates low environ-
Guide Pratique de l’autopromotion (Locatelli mental impact with economic justice’
et al., 2011) or the Belgian Samenhuizen (Chatterton, 2013). However, the applied
Startgids,1 for example, provide creative technologies and concepts are not new in
solutions for decision-making, affordability themselves; it is the specific combination
and legal and property models, as well as that makes the project as unique as any of
environmental principles of building, the co-housing family. Experimenting with
energy-, waste- and watercycles. High straw-bale construction was only possible
ambitions, leading to experiences that are after receiving a £4.5K grant. Moreover,
relevant to participative and sustainable ‘economic justice’ is rather questionable
2028 Urban Studies 53(10)
when ‘Due to the minimum net incomes 2010). The theorising of gender and cohous-
needed to live in the project most members ing originated with the Scandinavian inter-
are in employment’ (Chatterton, 2013: 6). disciplinary women’s research group, in a
Rather, the project addresses the income project called New Everyday Life. It devel-
gap between qualifying for rental benefit oped the ‘intermediate’ level between indi-
and being able to afford home-ownership. vidual private lives and the formal public
Moreover, a study by Sheffield University world as a concept for reorganising and inte-
found that residents in the project were not grating housing, work and care (Horelli and
able to fully exploit the low-carbon features Vepsä, 1994: 206). In a recent update on gen-
of the LILAC homes, because of lifestyles der and co-housing, Horelli and Vestbro
and gaps in the collective learning process observe a shift from ‘reorganize the every-
(Baborska-Narozny et al., 2014). day’ to ‘overcome isolation and look for sus-
Compared with the amount of qualitative tainable lifestyles’ (Vestbro and Horelli,
analyses, quantitative assessment is rather 2012: 331). Several authors signal that in
scarce. Outside Denmark, co-housing rarely Sweden more women than men are inter-
exceeds 5%, or even 1% of the housing ested in cohousing. Sandstedt (2009) relates
stock (Tummers, 2015). For academic the higher interest amongst women to the
research, the networks’ publications so far larger proportion of senior citizens, the
are the only ‘statistics’ as yet available. One majority of whom are female and single.
explicit attempt to provide an overview is Sangregorio (2010: 122) interprets the inter-
the ‘Eurotopia’ directory, coordinated by the est of (Scandinavian) women in cohousing
eco-village Sieben Linden (BRD). In 2014 it as a movement to change daily life in small
listed 430 housing communities in 24 coun- steps rather than creating a completely new
tries, estimated to be about 15–20% of the society. Women-only housing projects have
total in Europe (Peters and Stengel, 2014). been initiated since the 1980s and continue
The directory illustrates the variety of mod- to be of interest, as recent projects illustrate,
els and uses ‘intentional communities’ as an such as Les Babayagas in Montreuil (France)
umbrella term. Several research teams are or Beginenwerk in several German towns
constructing more systematic databases col- (available at: www.frauenwohnprojekte.de,
lecting data on size, profile, tenure, and so accessed July 2012). This may find an expla-
on; for example, Fedrowitz for the German nation in Metcalf’s observation that ‘Within
‘Wohnbund’ (available at: www.gemeinsha- most intentional communities, however, we
flicheswohnen.de, accessed June 2014) or the find traditional gender roles being followed
French database Alter-Prop (available at: by women and men’ (Metcalf, 2004: 100).
http://alter-prop.crevilles-dev.org, accessed Nevertheless, Toker found that women living
June 2014). Vestbro mentions a Swedish in USA cohousing projects spend more time
database created in the 1990s, though it has on their own activities and less on household
not been published (Vestbro, 2000). chores than women living in residencies
designed on ‘New Urbanism’ principles
(Toker, 2010). Jarvis and Bonnet provide
Cluster 2: Changing lifestyles –
more insights in the differences between con-
accommodating the everyday servative urban models such as New
According to Vestbro, the cohousing move- Urbanism and the ‘creative nostalgia’ of US
ment represents a rupture with traditional cohousing models (Jarvis and Bonnet, 2013).
family structures, specifically a break with French policymakers propose interge-
gender roles in the domestic sphere (Vestbro, nerational co-housing to alleviate the
Tummers 2029
solitude of the elderly and the housing pres- historical American communities, which she
sure for the young. Labit compares policies calls utopias, some of them strictly hierarchi-
of habitat solidaire (housing based on soli- cal, others (such as Quakers) with a more
darity) directed at senior citizens in France egalitarian organisation. Architectural
and Germany (Labit, 2015). German policy- design is seen as important by the ‘utopians’,
makers stimulate senior citizens to organise not only to organise the physical space for
around paid-for services, or to participate in their activities, but also as expression of their
intergenerational co-housing to assure assis- ideals (Hayden, 1979: 33). Cooper Markus
tance when needed. The intergenerational draws similar conclusions upon analysing
model is said to appeal especially to young the architecture of six more recent cohousing
families, who depend on ‘grandparents’ to projects in Europe, identifying design fea-
reconcile family life and professional career. tures contributing to ‘a sense of community’
However, as Labit concludes, solidarity is both in site plan and building design
not a natural given, it needs to be made (Cooper Markus, 2000). Based on analyses
explicit and nurtured (Labit, 2015). Choi in two communities, Williams identifies simi-
found that many residents in Danish senior lar ‘key-design factors that encourage social
cohousing are highly satisfied with their liv- interaction: proximity to buffer zones, good
ing conditions, but warns that ‘it should not quality, accessible, diverse communal spaces
be seen as an alternative to nursing homes’ with ample opportunity for surveillance; and
(Choi, 2004: 1192, 1208). This places co- finally private units (with restricted facili-
housing into the heart of current debates ties)’ (Williams, 2005: 222). Williams recom-
about the decline of the European welfare mends further research to determine the
state and the fragile boundaries between ‘threshold at which social interaction is dele-
positive and negative sides of self-reliance. teriously affected by density’ (Williams,
According to Jarvis ‘the lived experiences 2005: 223). Fromm’s dissertation of 1991
of co-housing have remained under-theo- still offers the most comprehensive study
rized’ in urban studies (Jarvis, 2011: 561) about architectural features and planning
because first, debates on the re-emerging processes of cohousing projects in USA and
community trends have been dominated by Northern Europe (Fromm, 1991). Fromm
the ‘new urbanism’ model going back to the concludes that ‘intermediate spaces’ are a
traditional neighbourhood and the role of key factor in making communities function.
developers and the state. Second, housing is This could be said to be the spatial equiva-
still mostly seen as a separate discipline, and lent for the ‘intermediate level’ identified by
integrative research into the complex of the earlier-mentioned Scandinavian women’s
housing, citizenship and sustainable devel- research group. Especially Hayden’s analy-
opment is still modest (Jarvis, 2011: 562). ses make it clear that there is no straightfor-
Co-housing practices, on the contrary, inte- ward relation between urban form, spatial
grate these different fields: technical, social logic and social structure. Williams proposes
and financial structures are made to respond that cohousing projects allow to investigate
to a central set of values (Figure 1). the ‘relative importance of design factors’
(Williams, 2005: 222).
If criteria to ‘design community’ cannot
Cluster 3: Architecture and designing
be formulated in a generic way, the interac-
community tion between initiators and architect(s)
The first study to address the architecture of becomes all the more important. For exam-
co-housing is Hayden’s analyses of (seven) ple, when future residents are involved in the
2030 Urban Studies 53(10)
design process, there is ‘more acceptance’ creates informal meeting places and inte-
(Meltzer, 2000) or ‘less conflict’ (Williams, grates environmental heritage; as well as
2005) once the building is inhabited. This reducing the ecological footprint through
does not apply exclusively for co-housing; building technology and efficient infrastruc-
neighbourhood organisations amongst oth- ture, a profile that fits most co-housing proj-
ers have demonstrated for decades that ects. To do this within regular budgets
including user groups leads to more ade- requires highly professional skills from archi-
quate design proposals. However, Fedrowitz tects and urban designers. The text and pic-
and Ache confirm that the essential charac- tures of ‘Housing in Plural’ highlight such
teristics of (German) co-housing are ‘the outstanding architecture, but without human
strong involvement of the future inhabitants presence to illustrate the success for everyday
during the conceptual and planning phase’ reality of use and management.
as well as a certain degree of community or
communal spaces (Ache and Fedrowitz,
2012: 395). Cluster 4: Neighbourhood development –
In planning theory, ‘collaborative’ refers island or oasis?
to the involvement of stakeholders and In the present European context, planning
diverse governmental departments in an inte- cultures and housing regulations often func-
grated planning process (Healey, 2005). In tion as a selection process. In order to sur-
planning practice, the position of inhabitants vive as serious planning partners, co-
is often weak, despite legal consultation housing members need to have a certain
requirements. Furthermore, planning law, level of education and network capabilities.
housing allocation regulations, management Sociological studies confirm that co-housing
structures, location criteria and design typol- inhabitants are predominantly well-edu-
ogies may work out differently for distinct cated, middle-income households (Bresson
‘user groups’. An extensive study for the and Denefle, 2015). Despite aspirations to a
French Ministerial institute PUCA3 showed mixed-income structure, projects hold the
that the quality of the living arrangements risk of segregation (Ache and Fedrowitz,
depends to a large extent on the balance in 2012). On the other hand, local authorities
decision-making between residents, institu- perceive such ‘resilient’ groups as opportuni-
tional partners and consulting professionals ties for vulnerable inner-city areas. The
(Biau and Bacqué, 2010) and this is also study Collaborative Housing as a Strategy
observed in other case studies (see, for exam- for Social and Neighbourhood Repair gives
ple, Fromm, 2012; Tummers, 2015). The examples in run-down neighbourhoods in
‘hybridisation of knowledge’ in a co-creation California, Japan, Germany and the
process – in other words, who is the expert Netherlands (Fromm, 2012). Fromm’s criti-
on what field – presents a serious challenge cal analyses of realisation processes, as well
to the current top-down planning cultures as the evaluation of community life and out-
(Biau and Bacqué, 2010: 131). How far apart reach, make it clear that success depends to
the perception of quality by residents and by a large extent on aspects beyond the projects
architects can be, is illustrated in the Belgian themselves, such as: culture, workload,
‘Manifesto Wonen in Meervoud (Housing in urban infrastructure and other investments
Plural)’ (Van Herck and de Meulder, 2009). in the area. Williams’ optimistically entitled
The Manifesto states that ‘housing in plural’ ‘Designing neighbourhoods for social inter-
combines privacy and community; allows for action: The case of cohousing’ (Williams,
mixed use and diverse dwelling typology; 2005) looked at social interaction within two
Tummers 2031
collective nature as well as the shifting role collaborative projects are now more similar to
of residents in planning and management. the German Baugruppen. Nevertheless, some
For example: can legal instruments secure researchers consider all generations in the
inbetween spaces as a key-element between same category without considering the differ-
private and public? Most network fora and ent ambitions or policy contexts. For exam-
handbooks provide evidence of the frictions ple, the evaluation of the post-2000 housing
this causes, and how they can be solved. policy results includes co-housing projects
Legal and institutional obstacles were inves- from the 1990s in Boelens and Visser (2011).
tigated in a research programme called
Alter-Prop: ‘Alternative ways for property,
shared ownership and eco-/solidary cohous-
Findings
ing’.4 The research differs from earlier stud- The present literature review found that
ies in that it examines long-term knowledge around co-housing is diversify-
developments and places empirical data in a ing, and language barriers are beginning to
framework of legal and sociological theory. be crossed, for example in the first European
(Bresson and Denefle, 2015). Fenster sig- Conference on Co-housing, held in March
nalled that, while the cooperative seems an 2012.5 But although more information is
appropriate legal form for cohousing, most available, fact finding, systematic compari-
collectives organise as condominiums, since son and contextualising is still rather scarce
banks are hesitant to fund cooperatives and Fromm’s comment in 2000 that ‘much
(Fenster, 1999). Scanlon and Fernandez saw literature is centred on advocacy’ is still valid
this confirmed in their London case study, today (Fromm, 2000: 91). Finally, each dis-
but also found that it is difficult for groups cipline has a different conceptualisation of
to discuss finance because of cultural taboos co-housing, and even within one field the
(Scanlon and Fernandez Arrigoitia, 2015). object of study is not necessarily well out-
One example of the institutional implica- lined. Such broad and therefore fuzzy con-
tions is the concept of mixed tenure within ceptualisation creates the risk of comparing
one building structure. During the centra- apples with oranges. It is necessary to take a
lised social housing regime of the 1980s closer look at the types of projects included
Centraal Wonen (the Dutch Cohousing in co-housing research: do they need to be
branch) created projects in partnership with fully ‘community led’, or do participative
housing institutions, consisting mainly of sub- projects for the elderly managed by a hous-
sidised rental units (available at: www.lvcw.nl, ing association also count? Is there a mini-
accessed January 2015). Contrary to the mum number of households involved? What
present-day situation, housing distribution are the boundaries between neighbourhood
regulations made these projects virtually inac- initiatives and gated communities? The fol-
cessible for households with (slightly) above lowing section looks at the historical refer-
threshold. In the 1990s Dutch policy has ences authors select; and attempts to classify
become more geared to individual plot- and based on the ‘co-’ element of housing.
home-ownership. Several projects implemen-
ted mixed forms of tenure for individual Delineages and conceptualisions
houses, common rooms and outdoor space,
of co-housing
creating different levels of financial accessibil-
ity. After 2000, partnership with housing Community housing projects have existed
associations has mostly been reduced to throughout history and in all continents
financial back-up and in practice the (Bürgerburo Stadtentwicklung, 2009;
Tummers 2033
Coates, 2009; Hayden, 1979; Poldervaart review Arch + described the new forms of
et al., 2001). The history section in Vestbro’s self-organised co-housing in Germany
inventory lists studies that go back to the (Baugruppen) as attempts to create ‘more
1920s and earlier, such as the ‘one kitchen efficiency in the organization of family-life’
house’, socialist collective housing, or com- (Kläser, 2006). In other words, only a spe-
munities based on the ideas of Fourier cific part of contemporary co-housing initia-
(Vestbro, 2000). Many studies refer to his- tives consist of (radically) idealist
torical examples, both theoretical utopias as communities. The Scandinavian interdisci-
well as built projects, through an ideological plinary women’s research group identified a
component. Poldervaart for example, rational ancestor of co-housing in Europe
emphasises the search for alternatives: during the 1920s: individual flats with
‘Intentional communities can be identified shared, paid-for services including a restau-
by a deliberate attempt to realize a common, rant, replacing traditional individual house-
alternative way of life outside mainstream hold servants. Only in the 1980s sharing
society’. She classifies collective self- domestic work and residents volunteering
managed housing initiatives as ‘Foucaultian became a feature of new co-housing projects
freedom practices’ (Poldervaart, 2001: 20). (Horelli and Vepsä, 1994: 206). In France,
Co-housing is often related to the squatter’s similar architectural models were developed,
movements of the 1980s (see, for example, including common rooms, such as roof ter-
Droste and Knorr-Siedow, 2012). Indeed, races, laundries and other services, for exam-
some of the flagship co-housing projects in ple, the Unite´ d’habitation or Cite´ Radieuse
Germany and the Netherlands have been in Marseille (1952) and the Maison Radieuse
initiated as protest-occupations of real estate at Rezé/Nantes (1955), designed by Le
and have meanwhile become a new type of Corbusier. Both were managed by owner-
institution. Political scientist Maury also cooperatives until cooperative property had
interprets the 21st century re-emergence of to be dissolved by law in 19716 (Denefle
cooperativism in France as a turning away et al., 2006). This line of thinking was further
from exploitative, social, economic, as well developed by Jarvis, who points at the ambi-
as ecologic practices (Maury and Bernard, guity of efficiency of sharing domestic work:
2009). Meijering et al. use ‘remoteness’ as ‘Indeed, the commitment most cohousing
classifier for rural communities (Meijering residents demonstrate toward environmental
et al., 2009). However, not all historical conservation, volunteering, and the develop-
models can be said to be bottom-up crea- ment of community initiatives arguably adds
tions. The often-quoted Familistère, for a ‘‘second shift’’ to income-generating activi-
example, built 1859 in Guise (France) to ties’ (Jarvis, 2011: 564). Amongst others,
improve conditions for factory workers, rep- Jarvis found that people are attracted to
resents a distinct lifestyle, hierarchical orga- cohousing as an alternative to capitalism and
nisation (based upon socialist ideas) and a the effects of neoliberalism without ‘having
top-down design. The paternalist, hierarchi- to enter a commune’ (Jarvis, 2012). Based on
cal views underlying some utopian experi- Finnish experience, Korpela concludes that
ments are fundamentally different from there are currently three types of collabora-
contemporary horizontal co-housing tion: serving a common ideal, sharing every-
organisations. day arrangements, or building together
Recent literature has described the re- (Korpela, 2012).
emergence of co-housing as pragmatic, Another historical lineage is made to the
rather than utopian. The architectural mutual self-built movements, for example
2034 Urban Studies 53(10)
PARTICIPATIVE
client
gated comm.
Consulting
TOP DOWN
Les Castors (The Beavers), a trade-union ini- Since its appearance in the 1980s in
tiative in the post-war period in France, Denmark and Sweden, the cohousing move-
often quoted as a precedent for Habitat ment spread mainly to the Netherlands, UK
Participatif (Lejeune, 2009). The Castors and USA. The model developed and distrib-
essence was to mutualise labour force for uted through an international network of
building rather than local community build- national organisations, such as Kollektivhus
ing, a model more related to Baugruppen in Sweden or Centraal Wonen (see: www.
than to ‘cohousing’. In Germany, the UK lvcw.nl) in the Netherlands, and new net-
and Scandinavia, the self-building movement works have emerged such as Samenhuizen in
has a parallel history with some overlap to Belgium and Habicoop in France.
contemporary co-housing; however, in most Contemporary initiatives in Europe do
cases building and maintenance is out- not necessarily belong to the cohousing
sourced (available at: www.selfbuildporta- movement. The overall profile of urban co-
l.org.uk, accessed November 2013; Minora housing initiatives, the more visible part of
et al., 2013). Benson calls for a reconsidera- the recent co-housing trend, corresponds to
tion of terminology and proposes to replace a group of predominantly middle-income
‘self-built’ with ‘self-procurement’ to empha- households (with few exceptions such as
sise resident-steered housing development, L’Espoir, Brussels) embedding itself in clus-
including individual plots as well as collec- tered housing in inner-city locations. They
tives (Benson, 2014). seek the benefits of the city, such as the
As a movement, ‘cohousing’ refers to a proximity of schools, culture, jobs and ser-
specific model of grouped housing with indi- vices, avoiding suburban disadvantages such
vidual household units and shared spaces7 as mono-functionality, isolation and car
(available at: http://www.cohousing.org.uk). dependency. However, some suburban
Tummers 2035
qualities are brought along, such as gardens, and co-creation to a more guided participa-
space for children or village-like settings for tory process for vulnerable groups (Fromm,
informal interaction and small-scale enter- 2012; Labit, 2015). Co-management and
prises. On the other hand, recent Dutch communal living may intensify after a joint
initiatives under the flag of eco-dorpen (eco- building process, or minimise over time.
villages) combine the ideals of the 1970s While the scope of new co-housing projects
‘back to nature movement’ with features of is widening, many scholars continue to use
21st century ‘network cities’. New communi- ‘cohousing’ as a generic term. Classifications
cation technologies as well as flexible labour are made according to the intensity of inter-
hours and shared transport are transforming action and collaboration between residents,
the classical models of villages and urban see for example the table made by
residential areas into new, hybrid designs Jonckheere, samenhuizen.be (Tummers
which combine the best of two worlds. 2012: 14). Vestbro proposes a reading of the
For planners, the choice of location is ‘co’ as ‘collaborative’, ‘communal’ and ‘col-
more significant than ideological features, as lective’, thus including the wide variety of
zoning plans, infrastructure and the housing practices (Table 2). He explicitly excludes
market show fundamental differences on a ‘cooperative’ as referring only to the tenure
local level. Location characteristics, such as structure. For example, in the UK ‘coopera-
the availability of services, playgrounds and tive housing’ is indeed a distinct, formally
gardens or public transport, affect the living defined model. Nevertheless, many projects
conditions, and the priorities set for the show renewed interest traditional coopera-
design of co-housing ensembles. On the tive models, such as Genossenschaften, or
other hand, the impact of co-housing initia- Italian, Spanish or Polish housing coopera-
tives will be diverse according to the scale tives (Coudroy de Lille, 2015).
and density of its environment. The consti- Fedrowitz and Gailing observe that in co-
tuent elements of co-housing are primarily housing ‘the organizational unit overlaps
the amount of shared space (planning sub- the spatial entity’ (Fedrowitz and Gailing,
stance) and the degree of self-reliance (plan- 2003: 33). Linking the ‘co-’ explicitly to the
ning process) (Figure 2). spatial dimension implies ‘self-management’
Typically, cohousing residents want con- (which may involve outsourcing) and
trol over design and development and excludes institutionalised management by an
remain active in use and management of external central office such as traditional
their shared location. In the wider range of Genossenschaften (German housing coopera-
initiatives, there are different grades of com- tives) or condominiums, and can thus
munity involvement: from full self-control absorb many hybrid forms of co-housing.
2036 Urban Studies 53(10)
process many confrontations occur, for research and comments; Vincent Nadin for gui-
example with housing norms, subsidy regu- dance on the structure; Søren Jonson for supervi-
lations, zoning plans, energy performance sion on English language and three anonymous
and certified technology. This makes it nec- reviewers for their constructive feedback.
essary for residents to compromise on the
initial ideal model while its full potential Funding
remains overlooked by planners or under- This research received no specific grant from any
used in the urban environment. funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-
Co-housing initiatives contribute insights for-profit sectors.
to new demands on urban development
institutions. If the evidence from single cases
Notes
is underpinned with systematic and quanti-
tative studies, co-housing processes may be 1. Available at: http://issuu.com/samenhuizen/
docs/startgids_3_febr_2015_web-versie/1?e=
relevant for present-day European cities that
13396442/11445939 (accessed 5 March 2015).
are struggling to maintain social cohesion.
2. Vestbro’s inventory counts approximately 75
To what extent do roles of stakeholders need titles with some indication of the contents but
to be re-defined and re-organised? What is hardly any further comments. The selection
the impact of planning culture and attitudes criteria for his overview have been rather
of planners and consultants on the projects? wide, clustering publications in history of col-
How can the accommodation of mixed- lective housing; overviews of alternative hous-
income households (rather than an elitist ing projects; publications discussing gender
minority) and long-term involvement in the aspects and children; design aspects of collec-
project management be assured? A new tive housing.
3. In translation: Urban Development
framework is needed, which can absorb both
Construction and Architecture Plan; an insti-
the universal characteristics of the trend as tute for knowledge development on the
well as locally specific environmental and environment.
institutional factors. 4. Franc xois-Rabelais University Tours/CNRS
Further research could examine co- Maison des Sciences de l’Homme Val de
housing as the citizen’s challenge to institu- Loire; Equipe CITERES – Cités,
tional planning, housing distribution, divi- TERritoires, Environnement. The database,
sion of labour and services of care and containing more than 300 projects and a large
assistance, rather than as ‘idealist experi- number of bibliographical and networking
ments’. Co-housing initiatives present micro- data is available at http://alter-prop.crevilles-
dev.org (accessed November 2012).
laboratories for new urban models for social
5. Available at: http://alter-prop.crevilles-dev.
interaction, both during and after the design org/ressources/items/show/1267 (accessed 25
process. Ultimately the question is how to May 2013).
incorporate changing values and urban 6. The so-called ‘Loi Chalendon’ suppressed
cohabitation cultures into institutionalised cooperative property and collective manage-
planning decisions. Co-housing studies do ment in favour of home-ownership. It was
not need advocacy to inspire, and invite accepted in the French parliament in 1971.
planners to critical self-examination. 7. ‘Cohousing is a type of collaborative housing
in which residents actively participate in the
design and operation of their own neighbour-
Acknowledgements hoods. Cohousing residents are consciously
Many thanks to the colleagues from the co- committed to living as a community. The
housing researchers network for sharing their physical design encourages both social
2038 Urban Studies 53(10)
contact and individual space’ (available at: Chiodelli F (2010) ‘Enclaves’ private a carattere
http://www.cohousing.org/what_is_cohousing, residenziale: Il caso di co-housing. Rassegna
accessed 24 August 2010). Italiana Di Sociologia 51(1): 95–116.
Choi JS (2004) Evaluation of community plan-
ning and life of senior cohousing projects in
References
northern European countries. European Plan-
Ache P and Fedrowitz M (2012) The develop- ning Studies 12(8): 1189–1216.
ment of co-housing initiatives in Germany. Cooper Markus C (2000) Site planning, building
Built Environment 38(3): 395–412. design and a sense of community: An analysis
Baborska-Narozny M, Stevenson F and Chatter- of six cohousing schemes in Denmark, Swe-
ton P (2014) A social learning tool – Barriers den, and the Netherlands. Journal of Architec-
and opportunities for collective occupant tural and Planning Research 17(2): 147–163.
learning in low-carbon housing. Sustainability Coudroy de Lille L (2015) Housing cooperatives
in Energy and Buildings 62: 492–501. in Poland. The origins of a deadlock. Journal
Benson M (2014) Creating a Nation of Self- of Urban Research and Practice 8(1): 17–31.
builders. An Interim Report from the Project Denefle S, Bresson S, Dussuet A et al. (2006)
Selfbuilding: The Production and Consumption Habiter Le Corbusier. Pratiques sociales et
of New Homes from the Perspective of House- théorie architecturale. Collection Le sens
holds. London: Department of Sociology, social, issue 1269-8644. Rennes: Presse Univer-
Goldsmith. Available at: http://www.gold.ac.uk/ sitaire de Rennes.
media/Benson-Creating%20a%20nation%20 Droste C (2015) German co-housing: An oppor-
of%20selfbuilders.pdf. tunity for municipalities to foster socially
Biau V and Bacqué M-H (2010) Habitats alterna- inclusive urban development? Journal of Urban
tifs: des projets ne´gociés? Paris: ENSA Paris- Research and Practice 8(1): 79–92.
Val de Seine. Droste C and Knorr-Siedow T (2012) Politics and
Boelens L and Visser A-J (2011) Possible futures cultures of community-oriented, self-organized
of self-construction: Post-structural reflections housing in Europe – Typologies, orientation
on ten years of experimentation with (C)PC. and motivations. In: Lafond M (ed.) CoHous-
In: Qu L and Hasselaar E (eds) Making Room ing Cultures. Handbook for Self-Organized,
for People: Choice, Voice and Liveability in Community-oriented and Sustainable Housing.
Residential Places. Amsterdam: Techne Press, Berlin: Jovis-Verlag, pp. 26–33.
pp. 103–128. Fedrowitz M and Gailing L (2003) Zusammen
Bresson S and Denefle S (2015) Diversity of self- Wohnen. Gemeinschaftliche Wohnprojekte Als
managed cohousing initiatives in France. Jour- Strategie Sozialer Und Ökologischer Stadtent-
nal of Urban Research and Practice 8(1): 5–16. wicklung. Blaue Reihe; Dortmunder Beiträge
Bresson S and Tummers L (2014) L’habitat parti- Zur Raumplanung 112. Dortmund: IRPUD.
cipatif autogéré en Europe: Vers des politiques Fenster M (1999) Community by covenant, pro-
alternatives de production de logements? cess, and design: Cohousing and the contem-
Metropoles Politiques alternatives de de´velop- porary common interest community. Journal
pement urbain 15(December). Available at: of Land Use & Environmental Law 15(1): 3–54
http://metropoles.revues.org/4623. Fromm D (1991) Collaborative Communities:
Bürgerbüro Stadtentwicklung (2009) Die erfin- Cohousing, Central Living, and Other New
dung des Gemeinschaftliches Wohnens von 1885 Forms of Housing with Shared Facilities. New
bis heute. Hannover: Stadt Hannover. York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Chatterton P (2013) Towards an agenda for post- Fromm D (2000) Introduction to the Cohousing
carbon cities: Lessons from LILAC, the UK’s Issue. Journal of Architectural and Planning
first ecological, affordable cohousing commu- Research 17(2): 91–93.
nity. International Journal of Urban and Regional Fromm D (2012) Seeding community: Collabora-
Research 37(5): 1654–1674. tive housing as a strategy for social and
Tummers 2039