The effects of Cohousing on the Social Housing system: the case of the Threshold Centre

Maria Laura RuiuUniversity of Sassari, Department of Political Science, Science of communication and Information Engineeringmlruiu@uniss.it

Housing Studies Association ConferenceThe value of housing15th -17th April 2014 • University of York

What cohousing communities are

Goals

Methodology

Main Results

Overview

What are Cohousing Communities?

The  Cohousing  idea  originated  in  the  60s  in  Denmark,  and  mainly  spread  in  Sweden, 

Holland, Denmark, North America, and to a lesser extent, Norway, Germany, Great Britain, 

Australia, New Zealand, Japan. 

Cohousing Communities consist of private homes around a common network of services 

(shared  kitchen,  dining  rooms,  childcare  facilities,  libraries,  laundries,  gymnasiums, 

cafeterias, offices, gardens, guest rooms etc.). 

Forming;

storming;

norming;

performing;

Development Process

nature of the projects (“social cohousing project”);

mechanisms and motivations behind the community development from the very beginning;

internal composition of the group in terms of "homogeneity" (or "heterogeneity") in relation to their economic, cultural and social capitals;

degree of closure (or opening) toward the outside and effects in the local community;

Goals

The observation aimed to study and describe the daily social relations among cohousers, residents’ habits, the space and its use (collection of visual data: photos and videos).

The semi-structured interviews referred to a list of topics: questions were added according to the themes recalled each time by respondents.

"Cognitive maps" were useful to understand where social interaction is concentrated and which areas represent opportunities for socializing within communities.

Internal composition referring to:

economic, cultural, social capitals of residents;

required tasks for each member within the community;

residents' personal experiences;

group cohesion, sense of belonging and development of a group '"identity";

common interests and goals;

internal organization, decision-making process.

three techniques of analysis connected to the "qualitative" methodology (observation, semi-structured interviews and cognitive maps;

 units of analysis: individual, group, community, internal organization and relations with the wider context where the communities arose.

methodology

Threshold Centre, Dorset, 2008

Gillingham, Dorset (2002 – 2008)

Cohousing communities have in common the intention to create the "village atmosphere" where the neighbourhood is able to create formal and informal mutual-support networks;

Their need of a "friendly neighbourhood" can be explained in relation to the impossibility to find the same relationships within a "normal" neighbourhood;

Cohousers identified only one difference between the Cohousing and village lifestyle: this is the intention to relate more each other;

Self-management of common spaces and facilities;

group size to support the community dynamics;

freedom in deciding to leave the community;

"elective neighbourhood";

common way of life and sharing of common purposes;

development of a sense of belonging;

Economic benefits

Environmental care

53

Intentionality;

participation of inhabitants in designing the communities' physical layout ;

presence of private and common facilities (and common activities);

Rural Context (1,5 acres);

“co-social-housing” (50% managed by a housing Association);

14 semi detached houses (owners, co-owners, renters);

18 adults (6 men and 12 women);

Mainly singles (only 2 couples) over 40 years old;

1

Cohousing Features

Need to deepen the study about Cohousing as a social housing form;

partnerships might produce some benefits if they are managed in a bottom up way

(some difficulties in applying the cohousing scheme by following a top down logic);

need to involve residents in development and decision making processes

(intentionality);

Threshold Centre has been able to reduce the approval and construction timescale

thanks to the partnership with a Housing Association;

Physical layout and internal composition;

Cohousers provide those facilities that would normally be government responsibilities

because services are directly managed by members;

Partnerships can “force” cohousers to make their facilities available in the wider

context;

Partnerships can “force” cohousers to build “eco-friendly” communities.

Conclusions

Thanks…