These issues must also be confronted within the context of climate change. With the government committed to reduce CO2 levels by 80% by 2050 , ecological housing projects focus on the energy reductions available through technological solutions. Whilst valid, the negative results of this myopic approach are reflected in the rebound effect, demonstrated by an increase in energy consumption when energy-efficiency improvements facilitate reduced service costs – encouraging more use. Energy use accounts for 17% of the carbon footprint of the average household. With 39% of energy use for travel and food production and higher environmental degradation , it’s clear that behavioural change to a more sustainable lifestyle should be encouraged. The individual lifestyles prevalent in today’s society manifested by materialism and overconsumption expedite both mental and physical health diseases and led to deterioration in community structures. By taking a more holistic approach to design and re-establishing the role of community is it possible to stimulate people’s behaviour positively towards the environment and their personal relationships with one another? Can a shared community context create resilience in the face of these challenges? A radical response to all of the above issues seems evident.
COHOUSING_PRINCIPLES
Forming these communities from scratch allows members to have a greater say in the design and planning stages of the development. The prevailing design characteristics of cohousing are highlighted in the communal facilities. Typical shared amenities include: communal dining space, laundry, guest rooms, workshop, child crèche, and gardening equipment. A collective approach towards energy and food production, waste and water use and transport is adopted. Cohousing site layouts tends to be small clusters with a density of 20-40 residents although larger communities have been formed. Cars are restricted to the outlying areas allowing large outdoor spaces, safe for children and a key encourager of social interaction. More familiar housing design is visible in the individual homes (including kitchen space) with gardens allowing residents to maintain their privacy. Members of cohousing communities take a strong role in the organisation and day-to-day running of shared common facilities, usually achieved through a voluntary rotor system. Other sub-groups are formed with the responsibility of managing specific aspects of the community such as maintenance, facilities, sales, land-use, finance and social activities. Despite such organisational structures, developments are non-hierarchical and have no shared economy. Community decisions are usually made by open consensus, with a well-defined process in place. Although cohousing requires a level of commitment from its residents, the timescale involved in participation is not usually defined. Residents are free to sell up at any time, and new members are welcomed usually with a prerequisite of sharing the same aspirations as the existing community. This is normally facilitated through membership criteria and subscription.
The benefits of cohousing extend beyond the social. The potential for reducing environmental impact and economic savings are also palpable. The process of providing residents with shared access to facilities and services rather than individual ownership has implications on the consumption and living costs. Environmental literacy with regard to energy, water and waste practices noticeably increases through community engagement. Car-pooling, access to communal office space and social activities all act towards a reduction of travel requirements. Shared facilities allow space requirements for accommodation units to reduce and become more affordable. On average cohousing provides a saving of 31% in space, 57% in electricity and 8% in goods. If such a model could be adopted for large-scale housing, would forgoing the intrinsic ‘intentional’ dimension of the model diminish its ability to offer socially cohesive sustainable communities? Or in fact does the intentional aspect of cohousing restrict its ability to be a truly diverse model of housing, allowing access to people who have the money to invest in such developments for their own personal gain and who perhaps are already living quite sustainably.
GOVERNMENT_POLICY & INITIATIVES
A strong political consensus is required. Each mainstream political party in the UK recognises the current housing shortage and are committed to building more homes, but currently only the marginalised Green Party mentioned cohousing in their last election manifesto . This contradicts statements made by various commissions and reports by a number of government-funded bodies. The Independent Commission for Co-operative and Mutual Housing states “We call for an aim to be set that by 2030, each town, village and community should be able to offer cooperative and mutual housing options to potential residents”. This is a sentiment repeated by HAPPI and the New Horizons Research Programme . Cohousing could also be heavily incentivised by the creation of new legislation by Government and local authorities. This is already evident in the tightening of building energy standards being phased in currently to reduce the use of CO2 emissions, which already makes cohousing an attractive alternative. Coherent policies on sustainable housing based on creating sustainable lifestyles rather than simply green buildings would aid support this further. Design standards that accommodate change care and support needs allowing future-proofing of homes. Planning legislation could also be geared towards encouraging collaborative developments. Vauban in Germany is an example of alternatives can be taken to bring local communities and local planning departments together.
DEVELOPER_LED As our resources dwindle and our materialistic lifestyle become less affordable, greater weight will lie in quality of life standards. With housing this can only be achieved through the creation of places with community rather than purely building greener homes. The long-term rise in fossil fuel prices and tightening of building regulations adds further viability to cohousing, but more coherent planning legislation and financial incentives are required.
The current governments ‘Big Society’ ethos aims to provide a shift of power from centralised state to local communities. This devolving of control, funds and services to local social enterprises, charities, co ops, community groups, neighbourhoods and individuals could present an opportunity for proponents of cohousing by the loosening of planning restrictions and increase of funding. Amended planning laws could also allow the adaption of thousands of habitable empty properties and surplus public sector land and buildings for cohousing developments.
Municipal funding mechanisms could come directly in the form of grants and subsides to aid the establishment of new cohousing groups. Indirect funding could take the shape of tax rebates for cooperative networks. Financial support is key to ensuring that affordable cohousing is available to all and not only those with existing personal wealth. Providing access to social rented cohousing, perhaps including a rent-to-buy option or through mutual home ownership, could allow those from low-income backgrounds to benefit from cohousing. Existing social tenants who are new to cohousing could also be encouraged to engage with their new community by offering a 10% equity share in their social rented property. Housing associations also have a key role in developing social cohousing, an example indicated by Hanover who recently worked with three groups to develop and manage the UK’s first cohousing scheme for older people.
Local authorities have a vested interest in advertising attractive living conditions when attempting to entice people and businesses to move to or invest in its constituency. As aspirations of individual home ownership dwindle, greater value is transferred to quality of life and sense of community that cohousing can offer. As a more resilient housing model, the drain on the states resources would also be markedly less, as care services and maintenance could be integrated within the community. This is a viewpoint taken in many other countries, where local authorities are allowed to compete for housing development due to its potential benefits for local services . Cohousing’s relatively small land footprint and increased density also provide councils with savings in terms of land costs and land use, alleviating space that could be made available for other infrastructure projects.
Although demand for social housing is so high, vacancy filling could be problematic, especially when a community seeks residents who conform to established interests and motivations. Cooperative rental tenure can ensure that any applicant is fully aware of their responsibilities before accepting the place. General awareness and availability of information regarding cohousing would also have to be promoted by local authorities in an attempt to combat prejudices surrounding such communities. Even after intense planning, the delivery of the building will be in the hands of the house-builder, who’s positioning within ‘the market’ may require them to restrict supply and optimise sale prices rather than meeting community needs.
Could the private sector become the main provider of cohousing? It certainly has some speciality skills in terms of technical and legal competence, and the building of a shared community does not always require a new form of building organisation. The main pitfall associated with developer-led cohousing is the main motivation behind most volume house builder’s developments; market profitability. Over time, volume house builders have concentrated on driving down construction costs rather than creating greater value. When considering all costs involved in construction, it is clear that developer’s burden most if not all of the up-front costs before any completed units are occupied. There is also an element of risk associated with house building should the uptake of units not materialise as witnessed in the recent economic downturn which saw a number of house builders go out of business. On the reverse side, when profitable, this short-term capital growth investment market provides house builders and their investors with substantial returns. Should these companies take a more long-term view, a steady but more modest revenue flow could be achieved, reducing risk but increasing financial stability. By not maintaining a long-term interest in their sites, they have little interest in optimising design beyond any immediate cost implications. The perceived extra cost or loss of potential revenue associated with common areas is one problem highlighted by developers. Hansen & Wachter argues that if an investor considers how much floor space in an ecological house can they obtain for a certain price, the resultant reduction in floor space and therefore savings in building costs can be then used to finance community facilities. This argument becomes more relevant as regulations regarding energy efficiency take hold.
There are a number of incentives for developers to instigate cohousing. The high quality of life achieved and effective land-use with regards to density would be a strong argument when responding to planning guidelines. Costs are also reduced by low occupant turnover and a reduction in maintenance. A large undivided site also presents developers with the economies of scale required for energy efficient technologies. If they are successful in creating cohesive cohousing communities, is there a long-term opportunity to create a brand based on community creation? If developers need an incentive to invest long-term in communities, there may be some rational for the sharing of any capital gains received when units are re-sold to new residents should demand increase and house prices rise.
Property developers are already active in producing ecologically orientated settlements, but as previously stated, with a concentration solely on technical solutions. Traditional housing companies tend to trust only conventional housing solutions, and may take any opportunity to alter designs and endanger the collective nature of cohousing. How can developers be encouraged to pursue more social goals? Presently most housing development is built on a speculative basis; however cohousing requires participants to play an active part in the planning process. Perhaps by working in tandem with established cohousing organisations developers could form a design framework for potential schemes, find prospective residents, thus reducing sales risks and marketing costs. One potential role could be in the education and promotion of cohousing to prospective purchasers about the benefits of cohousing. Currently, projects are abandon the moment it is handed over to the new owner. But by again taking a longer-term role, developers could educate new owners not only in the operation of the new energy-saving technologies, but also aid in the setting up of the local management groups overseeing the day-to-day running of the community or even diversify into estate management. Also, by allowing access of shared facilities to the wider community, better relations can be created with the public and a new revenue stream created. Could developers become community landlords or would this diminish community relations?
NEEDS_BASED
As the demographic evidence suggests, people are indeed living longer, but are also remaining more active. Many people continue to work beyond the state retirement age. In could be argued that those who are still capable of working but chose not to increase the strain on the welfare state. Many elderly desire to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible. One major barrier to this is mental health. The number of people with dementia is set to double to 1.4 million over the next 30 years and the costs to the UK economy will go from £17billion to £50billion . The breakdown of extended family support has led to a reliance on the current system of elderly care homes and sheltered housing, which provides some level of security and care but yet can sometimes neglect the isolation and loneliness felt by their inhabitants. By surrounding elderly people with more elderly people, an out of sight out of mind mentality can prevail – hence why there is a fear of being 'put in a home'. Elderly people benefit considerably from the company of younger people, and from living near and seeing children. Providers of social care are increasingly interested in creating inclusive, non-institutional environments, where residents retain control. A national government strategy calls for “greater innovation from developers and new perspectives on inclusive design for lifetime neighbourhoods”. Cohousing could appeal to older people in particular. The elderly housing panel HAPPI highlighted several examples of cohousing in Europe and recommended that “co-housing models be supported, where a group of households meet their own needs”.
Although there will always be a requirement for high-level care of the elderly with severe physical or mental issues, low birth rates could see a shortage in future generations skilled care workers. A rise in immigration may also be required to deal with this need, itself presenting social cohesion issues. Today’s growing numbers of single parents and one person households underline a need for social support and access to social togetherness.
Could cohousing offer a housing form suited for elderly in need of daily care and provide an opportunity for integration of other isolated segments of society? This has been already put in practice in Munksogaard, Denmark, where young and old have been brought together under one cohousing development . Rather than rely on social care mechanisms to provide a social life for the elderly, a community structure seen in cohousing could provide an informal level of support. Specialist caregivers could also be provided with a home within the community and could play an active part in the planning of any developments. Both child and parent would benefit in the context of cohousing. As single parents attempt to find a work/life balance, on-site crèche facilities could provide necessary support whilst ensure a diverse environment for elderly residents. Cohousing can also be adapted to facilitate individual customs and practices seen in immigrant communities, educating local people and breaking down stereotypes.
The success of inclusive housing depends on how effectively managers can build a sense of community by encouraging residents to attend planning meetings and participate in decision making. This may pose challenges in light of the physical and mental impairment experienced by many elderly residents – therefore it is imperative that all age groups are involved.
CONCLUSION
Neither the public nor private sectors are ideally placed to provide cohousing, but yet both have a lot to offer in terms of ensuring that cohousing no longer remains a relative luxury that only consciously-minded citizens with strong fiscal backing can afford or that it develops into a new form of gated community. Therefore a partnership between developers, housing associations and local authorities should be encouraged, and the participation of sections of the public who will benefit from these developments is crucial. The Netherlands has already brought the public and private sectors together to deliver a cohousing scheme in Amersfoort . Elements of co-operative use are already beginning to break through in the UK, affecting where we shop, work, bank, and travel, as seen by the popularity of car clubs. This ethos needs to be introduced to mainstream housing provision. Prototype needs-based cohousing models could be rolled out across the UK in an effort to demonstrate the virtues of investing in diverse sustainable communities. For the public sector this would provide an alternative production of personal services, and for developers, a long-term financially stable housing model.
Perhaps the cohousing model requires adaption for 21st century lifestyles and aspirations? With a high percentage of the housing stock requiring retrofitting, can the cohousing model be applied to existing communities where social cohesion has failed? Radicals in the 1960s formed the original cohousing concept – the very age group now reaching their senior years. Can they once again help define progressive agendas for housing?
