What can we learn about Sociality and Sustainability from Alternative Models of Co-housing For Future Housing Provisions?
Clinton Ibukunoluwa Olajide Jr 1502206 BA Hons Architecture University For The Creative Arts Canterbury School Of Architecture
Contents
Intro
1
The Housing crisis
3
In Defence of Housing The Home as a commodity
Method
8
Co-housing
9
What is Co-housing? Sociality in Cohousing
Literature Review
17
Cohousing: Verifying the Importance of Community in the application of Environmentalism Sociality in Cohousing Sustainability in Cohousing Sociality and Sustainability’s relationship in Cohousing
LILAC
21
About LILAC Sociality At LILAC Sustainability At LILAC
OWCH
28
About OWCH Sociality At OWCH Sustainability At OWCH
Cohousing In The UK
35
Springhill Cohousing Lancaster Cohousing Penington Cohousing London Older Lesbian Cohousing
Conclusion
43
Bibliography
45
List Of Illustration
49
1
Intro
In the words of Theresa May, “For 30 or 40 years we simply have not built enough homes� (Weaver, 2017), the graph in figure 2 illustrates this statement best. The sharp plunge in the late 70s and stagnation in the 90s in permanent dwellings completed has left us in a situation where there is a high demand but low supply for housing, therefore prices are high, leaving large numbers of people unable to afford a place to live. In this thesis I will discuss and analyse the impacts Cohousing communities in the UK could have, and some are already having on local communities. Focusing on LILAC’s community in Leeds and OWCH In High Barnet, I will attempt to show an understanding of how these communities organise themselves, as well as their methods and approaches to sustainability and sociality. Then I will investigate how co-housing is used in other parts of the UK and finaly discuss how it can be used to provide for a community in need of housing provision. Therefore, what can we learn about Sociality and Sustainability from Alternative Models of Co-housing For Future Housing Provisions?
Figure 1: ‘For Sale and Sold Signs’ (2017) 2
Figure 2: ‘The rise and fall of council house building’ (2017)
3
The Housing Crisis In Defence of Housing
More and more people are moving to cities for work and a “better way of life”, but there aren’t enough affordable houses available. Many government parties have released various policies and promises to the public about how they aim to tackle this issue, here what two most porpular parties have promised within their manifestos: The Conservative Party, currently in power under the leadership of Therese May aim to “deliver a million homes by 2020”, stating that they will encourage modern methods of construction in a hope to build “high-quality, sustainable and integrated communities”. They promis to protect the green belt and consider building 160,000 homes on land owned by the government, but give communities the power to decide what is built around them and its quantity. (Conservatives, 2017) The Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn have set out to build a minimum of “100,000 council and housing association houses per year until the next parliament”, they will be affordable, and the party will push for development on brownfield sites. They aim to explore “new modern standards for building zero carbon homes” whilst maintaining the green belt, but also set aside a portion of houses built for first time buyers to enable them to enter the housing market. (Labour, 2017)
The housing crisis is not only apparent through the lack of housing provision, it exists because of rising house prices, the privatisation and selling of social housing provisions and more. It highlights issues within the housing market, raising questions about: affordability, home ownership, land ownership, the exploitation of the market by some, the dependence on developers purchasing land and providing new homes. The writers of In Defence of Housing encapsulate the issue well, although, their focus is on housing problems in the US as they interrogate matters in New York city, they find display direct relationships with cities around the world. One claim by In Defence of Housing, for the stagnation in the current state of the housing system is its commodification of the house, how the home; although thought of as a necessity, is no longer treated in such a way. When farmers and those who worked the land used their home for both shelter and work, we can imagine a time where there was this happy balance between the house and the work place. But, as their lands began being claimed, kept as a possession and commodified by King, Lords and the wealthy, It is clear how this problem started. Industrialisation only acted as a catalyst in accelerating this process, there was no longer this intimate relationship between home and work, People began migrating after being priced out of their ways of life, and the only option was “look to the open market for a place of residence” (Madden, 2016). The writers continue to list a range varying factors under the deregulation, financialization and globalisation of the housing market, and their prominence in major cities which allow the issue to radiate to respective regions. And so we have; $100 million apartments, lack of affordable houses, homelessness, masses of properties ‘owned by billionaires that do not contribute to the communities they inhabit’ (Madden, 2016:39), the reduction in public housing being built, “Hyper-Commodification”. A second claim is the myths of housing policies, challenging the American governments inability to carry out term long promises of tackling the housing system. The writer’s point to various moments in the American history; WW1 - They claimed that
4
“the earliest state-supported housing programs” were born from the need “to support sensitive war time industries” (Madden, 2016:128), 1949 to 1980 – The Urban Renewal saw “an estimated one million households displaced” at a point where there was an inverse correlation between housing needs and housing production (Madden, 2016:133-134), 1986 to 2014 - The introduction of Low-Income Housing tax credit available for developers able to provide dwellings for those on low-income, ‘after 15 years these dwelling can revert to market value’ but the rise in funding for this programme corelated with a fall in the public housing budget. (Madden, 2016:136) It is clear there is a high need for housing, but there is aslo a high dependence on the government, local authorities and developers to provide for the nation, the government is saying that they will build more and invest more. Currently underway is “Ebbsfleet Garden City” which began in 2014, a venture, rallying developers with its aims of creating up-to 15,000 new homes. In January 2017 a list of about 14 new developments were announced, and will take place in Devon, Hampshire, Essex and many more all over the England with a goal of providing 48,000 homes. But, what can people do by themselves to tackle the lack of housing?
5
6
Figure 3: ‘Ebbsfleet Garden City Developement’ (2015)
Figure 4: Ebbsfleet Garden City ‘The Vision’ (2016)
7
8
Method
I will carry out my research on cohousing; a self-initiated approach by: citizens, communities, groups of strangers, families, likeminded people, those with a collective goal of creating a home that is a sustainable and has a core focus on community for people in need of a home. Through the analysis of a range of written work, alongside lectures, presentations, and video interview, i will explore and unpackage this approach. By taking a case study approach, I will analyse my chosen case studies using a piece of literature that explores the use of sustainability and sociality in cohousing communities, where I will then form a conclusion in relation to my question.
9
Cohousing
Cohousing or Collective Housing may have begun with a series of Russian housing experiments conducted in the 1920’s. These experiments were stopped in 1930 when a ban on ‘harmful social experiments was actioned by Stalin’ (Vestbro, 2000). Collective housing was most common in last third of the 19th century in Northern Europe, in Denmark, Sweden, Holland and Germany, although approached with different ideas by practicing communities, they all share many similarities. In Sweden early examples like Hasselby Familje Hotell (1956) and Kollektivhuset Stacken (1969) looked the reuse of large apartment complex to create a collective housing community of mixed groups of people, to provide public housing for in respective towns. In Denmark communities opted for more integrated intergenerational community – Sættrdammen (1972) and other communities were more focused on the older generation, and created senior cohousing communities – Birkerød (1988). Modern Cohousing communities are largely inspired by the Danish model, it is a housing initiative that is created for small communities of people. They can be inter-generational; accepting people of all ages and family structures, they can be made explicitly for a certain
10 10
Figure 5: ‘Sættrdammen’ (2014)
Figure 6: Hässelby FamiljeHotell
11
group of people of in the community, LGBT, women only, senior cohousing groups and more. As they are commonly self-initiated and self-organised projects, there are many differences in mangement, ideologies, size and residents commitments between each community. But, they all share core values that grant them some advantages; residents are focused on building relationships with each other, they work together to sustain their respective communities, those relationships along with massively pedestrianized zones around their communities, make cohousing a safer place to live and raise children. Residents have private properties with all the essentials, but also gain a varied list of shared facilities, such as: gardens, common house, bike store, workshop, carpool and more. Typically, the common house is the centre of communal activities, within it there is usually a shared laundry room, post box and kitchen along with a dining area large enough to serve the entire community, and these shared facilities allow many communities to reduce their daily running cost, giving a cohousing development the ability to be affordable. Decisions on the uses of these shared amenities and various activities in the community are all made as a collective, on consensus or democracy, whether it’s; cleaning, cooking, gardening and maintenance schedules. This self-management gives inhabitants a sense of place and ownership of issues and solutions within their community, however there are also some disadvantages. The main possible disadvantage is how high the community’s success is dependent on the groups knowledge and understanding of cohousing, as well as the level of commitment residents put in. There is also a great deal of uncertainty in cohousing projects, because there are many different routes a group can take in making it a reality, it means many people may ultimately invest large amounts of time and money into a project that leads nowhere. There are a range of different paths to creating a cohousing community, and sometimes well documented by members of various successful, already establish communities and researchers. For example, The Cohousing Handbook written in 1996 and then revised in 2004 by Chris and Kelly ScottHanson, researchers who lived in and worked with cohousing communities since 1988, studying them as well as helping set up communities in the US. In the UK there’s now the UK Cohousing Network and The UK Cohousing Trust, set up by residents
12
Figure 7: ‘What would Your Cohousing Community look like’ (2015)
13
of cohousing communities around the UK and ran by volunteers, to support cohousing communities that are just starting up or already exist, and to carry out the research needed to educate the public and those keen, about cohousing.
The journey to creating a cohousing community is also as diverse as the communities, but through the guide provided by The UK Cohousing Network and the ScottHanson’s detailed handbook here are the steps cohousing groups typically take. Membership Cohousing groups range from 10 – 40 households; Too few and there isn’t enough “people for diversity and sharing”, too much and “locks appear on doors, people can no longer recognize who belong” (ScottHanson, 2004). It is key to set out the groups goals, whether they aim to be a sustainable eco settlement, or aim to tackle specific social issues, regardless regular meetings are needed so participants can begin forming bonds and relationships early on, establish their decision-making system, allocate jobs and roles; who would do what? How much of a contribution will members put into the project? Location Cohousing groups commonly settle in areas they know well, where they’ve lived previously or where most members are based, making location very important. Often people don’t want to lose or hinder the relationships they already have in their communities, connections to, schools, work, local shops and services. But whether it is somewhere familiar or new to them, groups usually meet with local authorities and adjacent communities, to form closer ties with the locals, who can sometime be the catalyst for the project when it comes to planning but it also creates opportunities to recruit new members. Financial capabilities Groups access their financial capabilities and explore various avenues to fund the project. Group sometimes collect membership fees, that may be used to fund their meetings or saved towards the project. They may apply for loans, take out joint mortgage’s or funding and various forms of support from the government or charities, in the UK there is the Housing Association, The Homes and Community
14
agency and many others. It important for groups to be organised and manage their finances, creating equity, cash flow, deposits to tackle challenges like differences in earnings that may affect how much or if members can contribute in later dates nearer to project completion, understating what professional services they will need, and how much they will need to pay for them.
Land Purchase For the projects progression its key for members to agree on their developments scale. How many houses can they fit on the site? For a single detached family house, the cohousing hand book recommend 1 to 8 units per acre, for apartment 15 to 50+ units per units per acre (ScottHanson, 2004:70). Once groups understand their desired scale, site choices can be narrowed down in line with working alongside local authorities to clarify what can be built of the site, but cohousing communities commonly look at the reusing old, vacant and or disused sites. Design Groups may form a design team to meet with architects and developers to realize their dreams and design goals, carry out feasibility studies, create initial design ideas and rough drawings, but the key thing is for have continuous communication between all parties for a successful exchange, and the final designs are decided upon as a group. Planning and Construction Once groups have decided on a design, they can begin their attempts of gaining planning permission from local councils. Then begin hiring and consulting other professional services, and forming respective contracts to see the project through to completion. Moving In Once moved in, groups now build their communities in practice, putting their aims and goals to action, organizing and managing their community the way they want.
Figure 8: ‘The Route to Cohousing’ (2015) 15
16
Literature Review of Cohousing: Verifying the Importance of Community in the application of Environmentalism
17
This article was written by Graham Meltzer and appeared in the Journal of Architectural and Planning research in 2000. It is an analysis of a set of data collected in research study of 18 cohousing settlements in North America conducted between September and December of 1996. The study set out to show how cohousing could be an example on how to change people’s attitudes and behaviours towards environmental issues. Researchers spent 3 or 4 days in each community, “documenting, evaluating, interviewing and participating in meeting, jobs, and social activities”, carrying out intensive surveys on the residents (Meltzer, 2000). The research is analysed under the following headings; Location, Site Design, Architecture, Systems, Waste Management, Food Procurement, Common Meals, Influence, Socialization, Exchange, Value of Diversity, Sharing, Practical Support, Community Support, Belonging, Community Culture and Efficacy. Meltzer talks about each topic with varying depths and links to Sociality and Sustainability within cohousing communities
Sociality in Cohousing
18
Sociality is “the tendency of groups and persons to develop social links and live in communities” (Collins, 2017). Does cohousing attempt to push the scale at with we interact with one another in that community? Using the information researchers collected from their observations and survey answers, Meltzer analyses the effects of; location, common meals, influences, socialization, the value of diversity, sharing, community support, belonging and community support, topics which i feel relate to sociality within cohousing. In each of the topics there is a continual view of the importance of the various organised and natural activities that occur in the communities studied. In community culture “bonds of community are strongest when fashioned from strands of shared history” (Meltzer, 2000), and their socialization is best understood through the children’s behaviour, where researchers witnessed changes in children’s TV viewing habit, with the increase in time spent interacting with other children sine moving into a chousing community. Meltzer’s method to understand and analyse the social links was in the use of statements residents make about their experiences, “a community mindset is developing, which expresses ecological values, and it becomes self-reinforcing as we borrow (or try on) new values” (Meltzer, 2000) because of this need for residents to form some degree of relationship, the UK Cohousing Network and Cohousing Handbook recommend those starting up a cohousing community to coordinate meeting with one another regularly throughout the process, which would enable the residents to strengthen their bonds and ensure that they are perpetual beyond project completion.
Sustainability in Cohousing
19
Sustainability: “The ability to be maintained at a steady level, without exhausting natural resources or causing severe ecological damage” (Collins, 2017). It often feels like an add on to the growing lists of characteristics cohousing communities have, is it a respectable gesture to the growing problem today? Despite that there are communities which have embraced this ‘check box’. it an integral part of their daily life, and have created eco-homes to support that. This relationship can most significantly be seen in the architecture and design of their sites, many communities limit vehicle accesses and have their buildings clustered to maximize the volume of open space they have, Meltzer picks out the Nyland community who have divided up land and allocated the responsibility of “regenerating the fields” and “re-establishing indigenous prairie grassland” (Meltzer, 2000) around their site to 20 members. The cohousing communities that were studied had significantly smaller dwellings compare to the average American dwelling in 1993, “the average size of new, one-family houses built was 2175 sf” while in cohousing dwellings researchers studied the average was 1267 sf, despite residents opting for smaller homes they gain a larger number of rooms, priorities weren’t in building new homes but “refurbishing existing building and recycling demolition and waste building materials” (Meltzer, 2000), a more sustainable use of space and building materials. Communities opt for varying energy conserving techniques, from using “super insulation” to “heat exchange water heaters”, some founding residents initially set out to try and “build lightly on the earth”, others didn’t even consider it in their project statement. Its pressures of affordability: costs of installing nonstandard material, and lack of knowledge about environmental impacts of material and methods that discourage some from implementing them.
20
Sociality and Sustainability’s relationship in Cohousing In analysing both the direct relationship sociality and sustainability, Meltzer touches on some links is some topics, carpooling offers a good example where through sharing and working together are reducing the use of vehicles (a major contributor to pollution) by their community. Meltzer concludes that the empowerment people gain in cohousing communities enables them to apply environmental values in a more practical way, he explores this in the community’s waste management, food procurement and the architecture of their site. The community studied had “well-established” communal vegetable gardens and private garden plots with portions of locally grown produce that is dedicated for their common meals, although Melter mentions that only a “minority of the community benefit from the availability” of this resource, it seems positive that the communities are continuing to act to try and reduce their consumption. Researchers also witnessed improvements in households recycling and composting in comparison to before living in a cohousing community, they push the reuse of whatever is possible with shared tools facilities available and delegate individuals, groups or households to “monitor separation on behalf of their communities” (Meltzer, 2000). Meltzer’s points highlight importance in the influence household have on each other, in changing the awareness, attitude and behaviour of their neighbours.
21
LILAC
Low Impact Living Affordable Community. LILAC began in 2006 with 5 friends and their families in Leeds, they had a collective goal of building their own homes, where they can live affordably and raise their children. It took about 7 years to come to fruition and currently occupies 20 households of about 36 adults and 13 children in a mixture of flats and houses. They spent the first 3 years researching and formulating their ideas, looking at ways of making their dreams a reality, after deciding on their set of values and gaininging additional members, they set up LILAC Mutual Home Ownership Society (MHOS) registering with the Financial Services authority in 2009, then met their architect Craig White in 2010. They gained further support of their community, councillors, the Home and community agency, though various outreach events: “stalls at the fates and fairs, talks to community groups, taking part in local groups activities like the Bramley and Bloom Campaign, hosting regular socials”. Then in 2012 they gained planning on an old school site in Bramley, Leeds, later completing the build in 2013 situated. A significant part of Lilac is their aim to be affordable. Together with the New Economic Foundation and the Cooperative Development Society, they developed a new home ownership model, as an attempt to “de-commodify the housing market” (Pickerill, 2016). They formed MHOS (Mutual Home Ownership Society) as this model required the land and houses to be co-operatively owned. MHOS gives residents “permanent affordability, co-ownership and economic equality” by allowing costs to be linked to the residents’
ability to pay without the pressure of losing their home if their financial status changes. The cumulative cost of the project is divided into equity shares that are allotted to each household, and payed off in monthly member charges equivalent to approximately 35% of their net income, a system is called “Deferential Rent”. But for 35% to be enough for MHOS to pay the mortgage repayments there are set minimum annual incomes dependent on the size of each property ranging from £15,000 for a one-bed flat to £49,000 for a four-bed house, giving those at the lower end of the income scale an opportunity to enter the housing market.
Figure 12: ‘LILAC’s Pond’
22
Sustainability At LLAC Site Design A prominent aspect of LILAC’s ethos is to create a low impact community. In its site design the arrangement of dwellings, completely pedestrianised streets and separated car parks to the peripheral of their estate, has created opportunities for an abundance of green spaces that allow residents to have their own private gardens, a communal drainage pond where a variety of plant and fauna surrounds its bank, and allotment gardens in the northwest section of the site to plant various vegetation.
Building Design Their homes were designed by White Design, who designed the UK’s first straw bale house in Bristol. The houses are designed using the passive design techniques that tackle issues of; “insulation, tightness, passive solar gain, efficient services and use of renewables” (Bougdah, 244), and was done using Modcell’s prefabricated timber-frame straw bale panel system, thats uses straw as islulation in the wall build up because it is a natural material, and its properties as good insulator. The houses are also fitted with photo voltaic panels and have no letterboxes, washing machines and a few other appliances that now dwell with the communal house. This in turn allows the community to reduce their energy consumption; in winter they no longer need to put on the heating because their homes are super insulated, and the sharing of appliances like the washing machine means less electrical energy in being used in homes. The overall effects of these strategies on the reduction of consumption at LILAC needs further investigation, but they are changing people’s behaviours and attitudes as well as making them more aware of the environmental issues surrounding the reason to build and live sustainably.
23
24
N
Figure 13: LILAC’s Site Plan
Figure 14: ‘LILAC’s Straw Wall’
Sociality At LILAC Social Activities The use of the Communal House for weekly meals, meeting, laundry and its function as the centre of the community, has created a space for residents who may be busy throughout the day/ week to meet with fellow residents that they are not familiar with. In regular community meetings, residents access and discuss various issues residents have, evaluate their own approaches towards their ethos and look at ways of improving their community. Front doors facing one another to promote community interactions, residents carshare, and the creation of a public park in the north-west corner of the site that creates a nutural invitation to the wider community to visit LILAC. LILAC’s mutual home ownership scheme also acts a catalyst for social interactions. It pushes people to be more active members of their community, by giving people on the lower step of the income ladder security in their home, it relieves them from the pressure of being evacuated when they can’t pay rent.
Design Homes are made up of flats and semi-detached blocks that surround the pond, by creating the completely pedestrianised zone around this centre and orientating front doors towards this zone, children are encouraged to spend more time outside without the danger of vehicles but also provides more opportunities for residents to meet and build relationships as they walk their cars, unlike most times where peoples cars are parked outside their front doors and the only relationship that exist between neighbours is a wave or nod. But LILAC could be seen a gated community, the private gardens being adjacent to the roadside has led to brick walls and fences surrounding the site, where the common house and the public park; Victoria Park Gove Pocket park, are LILAC’s only real connection to the wider community in Bramley.
25
26
Figure 15: LILAC’s Residents
27
28
OWCH
OWCH is a group of about 20 women aged 50 and above from a mix of cultures and backgrounds who have previously lived alone or currently work, are retired, some with health difficulties, but all “share a determination to stay as self-dependent and active as they get older”, who now live together at their site New Ground in Barnet. OWCH has been in the works for many years, it began from a research study by Maria Brenton presented in London to an audience of older women in the late 90’s, talking about senior cohousing developments in the Netherlands. And from that workshop a group of 6 women enthusiastic about the idea began OWCH. An important aspect to OWCH becoming what it is today is the women’ relations with the charity; Housing for Women, who help “provide homes and services for women and their families” (HFW). The acted as an agent in forming OWCH’s relationship between housing associations, their developers and those with the capacity and access to land to help realise the women’s dream. Coupled with a period of support and funding from The Joseph Rowntree Foundation; who funded Maria Brenton’s research. A limited company was formed under the group’s name, which opened temporary doors with the Housing cooperation and a social housing grant, doors that closed shut when the Housing cooperation rebranded as the Homes and Communities Agency. Long periods of fighting for support from different agencies, charities and housing
associations in Anchor, Acton, Peabody, Hyde may have left the women thinking it was never going to happen. A breakthrough in 2006. A charity called The Tudor Trust contacted OWCH, and after many conversations with the women; drawing out the connection with both their interests in “self-determining communities of older people”, the formed a lasting relationship and provided funds for OWCH’s running expenses as well as healthy housing grant to create social rental flats in their developement. 3 years on and the chief executive of Hanover Housing Association, Bruce Moore; who had an “interest in cohousing as a model to spark a culture of self-management” (OWCH), approached Maria Brenton; who had been working with OWCH as their Project Consultant, and offered to find them a site, he learnt about the group from the “HAPPI report on older peoples housing, published by the Homes and Communities agency 2009” (OWCH), which made a record of cohousing schemes around Europe. Hanover Housing Association became their developer and gave further support by injecting funds in the women’s work to develop their scheme even further. Once a decision on the site that was previously a disused school in High Barnet was made, Hanover purchased the site and the planning process began. Although there was opposition from Barnet Council which delayed the project from 2010, the women gained more support from local organisations in Barnet and through lobbying officers and councillors, planning permission was granted in 2013 along with the director for Adult Social Care agreeing that the women’s “argument that a senior cohousing community can reduce the need for health and social care services.” (OWCH).
29
30
Figure 9: ‘New Ground Cohousing Developement’
31
Sustainability At OWCH Site Design
The group stated in their mission statement that they aimed to care for the environment. They’ve attempted to do so around their site by the way the building acts as a wall between the road and the garden segregating the cars to small corner behind the common house, which has allowed them to keep a large portion of the site as grassland and for gardening, the varied shared amenities located in their common house to help reduce the consumption of energy on the site.
Building Design The architects, PTE, used a fabric first approach as well as the Code for Sustainable Homes 2010-2015 to “maximize air-tightness” with the insulation and allow them to take advantage of the south facing garden, by creating lots of glazed openings on the south façade, and open plan floors so flats can benefit from direct sunlight for heating and lighting. Sets of photovoltaic panels were also installed on the roofs south pitches of garden wing blocks, while roof lights are installed on the street side blocks.
32
N
Figure 10: ‘New Ground Site Plan’ (2015)
Sociality At OWCH
Sociality is the primary focus of the residents at New Ground, its firstly seen in the groups aims to be diverse and accepting community that care and support one another, tackling social issues age stereotypes and care for the environment. These aims are apparent in the social activities that occur between residents, but also in New Ground’s design.
Social Activities At New Ground the women participate in several social activities that are organised and some that happen naturally between themselves. They work together is groups that tackle different tasks around the community, there is a group that does the gardening, one responsible for finance, legal issues. They also have weekly communal meals and regular meetings which people can choose whether to participate or not, but their social connections are best seen in the resident’s experiences at New Ground. “I’ve probably been in the group for about 5 years ago, and so you do get to know each other pretty well before you get here. I joined the group because it just gets hard on your own, its things like who’s going to take you to a hospital appointment, or who’s going to look after the cat. And I really like all the women when I met them, they were wonderful, and I wanted to be there with them, you feel supported. It’s Fantastic, we plan to go to the cinema, theatre together and I love all that.” – Clare Martin (First UK women’s-only co-housing community arrives in north London, 2017) “I like the idea of we all look after each other and we can do things for each other, you know, in sickness and in health and all that. And just sharing things, I used to get fed up with gardening but doing it with other people, it more fun. You can join in with what’s going on,
33
but then you can close your door and be on your own. Yeah, it just feels like home right away” – Vivien Sheehan (First UK women’s-only co-housing community arrives in north London, 2017)
34
Design The homes are set around the shared facilities on the site. The entrance lobby links the common areas to the flats, which look out to the street and communal garden, this is to allow the common house that holds the shared kitchen, dining area, laundry room, meeting room and a guest room to be centre of all activities in their community. These decisions were made collectively by the group and project architect in a series of workshops and consultation sessions.
Figure 11: ‘New Ground Residents’
35
Cohousing In The UK
LILAC; a community of working class people who have come together to try and create a space that is “affordable, community focused and low impact”, OWCH’s New Ground; a long since established group that has only recently been able to materialise their vision of this community of women aged 50 and above. These case studies are also part of the growing community of cohousing settlements around the UK, where there are 19 that are established, and 54 who are at varying stages in the development, according to the UK Cohousing Network.
36
Figure 16: ‘Cohousing Communities in the UK’ (2015)
Springhill Cohousing
Springhill Cohousing began in 2000 by David Michael. Inspired by the work of Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett he bought a site in Stroud, Gloustershire, formed Cohousing Company LTD, then began inviting people to become members, residents and directors in the company which he transferred the ownership to. It is an intergenerational community; completed in 2004, made up of 85 residents in 34 houses, ranging from 1-bedroom flats to 5-bedroom houses, with completely pedestrianized streets, a common house where resident have communal meals around 3 times a week, workshops, playroom, care sharing schemes and bulk buying. The groups focus was on the ability to own their homes, but with sustainability been a common goal in cohousing communities but even with lack of funds the architect were able to explore “simple passive strategies” (architype) like the use of good-quality windows to reduce heat radiation from homes and roof over hangs to provide shading but what was significant is carrying out this characteristic of cohousing was the residents behaviours toward trying to live sustainably, which the architects reported in their post occupancy evaluation in 2010, mentioning that even though the buildings performed reasonably well the “sustainability of the homes was mainly down to the residents understanding of their homes limitations” that gave the opportunity to tackle it in a more proactive manor.
37
38
Figure 17: ‘Springhill Cohousing’
Lancaster Cohousing
Lancaster Cohousing; an intergeneration settlement whose primary aim was to for an eco-friendly society and found inspiration from cohousing as a sustainable way of living, they therefore participate in various cohousing activities such as carpooling, common meals, use of shared facilities and more. Established in 2006, they formed a limited company ran by members, where decisions are made by consensus in the management of their site, it is now inhabited by 65 adults and 15 children in 35 dwellings of flats and houses ranging from 1-bedroom to 4-bedrooms members “buy a longterm leasehold interest in their homes� (Lancaster) from the Lancaster Cohousing Company as well as pay annual membership fees and maintenance fees to. Completed in 2012, the homes; designed by Eco Arc, were built to PassivHaus Standards and Code for Sustainable Homes by having well insulated walls, heat recovery units, a direct heating system that distributes hot water to each property through insulated pipes from a wood chip burner in an external building on the site. The electricity use at Lancaster Cohousing is primarily produced through a hydro-electric scheme using the river Lune and photovoltaic panels on roofs across the site.
39
40
Figure 18: ‘Lancaster Cohousing’ (2015)
Penington Cohousing
41
Penington Cohousing is a developing senior cohousing group in Glasgow for people over the age of 50, looking to tackle social issues of loneliness and isolation in older people. The group was established in 2012 and registered as a Limited company by exmembers of another group that broke down because of its legal structure. Penington’s visions are to “encourage and promote active ageing for residents” to maintain their health and be independent and be “eco-aware” through the design of their dwellings and in the impacts of their activities on the environment and wider community. The group has been working to make their dream a reality for over 5 years and are now partnered with Southside housing association in developing a set of flats available for sale and social rent on a site in Pollokshields, Glasgow as well as looking at how they will generate the funding need, either from Glasgow City council or other organisations.
Figure 19: ‘Penington Cohousing Proposal’
London Older Lesbian Cohousing
LOLC, London Older Lesbian Cohousing; Set up in 2016 they are a group of lesbian women aged 50 and above who live in London and aim, is to create a “inclusive and vibrant community, that can provide an alternative to a retirement home” (LOLC). The group runs as a democracy to create a space where members: • Have a “transparent, fair and participatory decision making” process • Are “active participants in developing their project” • Are ‘supportive of one another’ • Share “resources to reduce their personal impact on the environment” • Diverse, accessible and safe for “women from different social background, ethnic groups and income levels • “Promote respect and tolerance” Although diverse in their decision making, community structure e.c.t. Cohousing communities all share these core principles; there isn’t a hierarchical decision-making structure; although commonly based on consensus, they all aim to have all members involved, they are self-governed and managed: with regular community meetings to tackle various decisions, and many advantages are gained from their common house, communal gardens and various social activities that occur by design and naturally.
42
43
Conclusion
I have learnt that sociality is the most dominant characteristic between these communities, and Meltzer allows me to understand that it is these social links that drive the lives of these communities. He references a quote from The Moral Commonwealth by P Selznick “A flourishing community has high levels of participation: people are appropriately present, and expect to be present, on many different occasions and in many different roles�, and I have seen in the case studies the importance the empowerment received by cohousing residents in their communities; At New Ground the women are driven by there desire to spend more and more time with the people around them, and in turn acts as an example to what local councils can do to support the older generation in providing mare proactive spaces for them to live, coherently helping reduce the pressures and dependence on adult social care in their respective areas. Lilac acts as an example for the exploration of new building technology, for providing sustainable house design, but more for the passion the inhabitants have in making sure that their home does what the had dreamed. Its mutual home ownership scheme provides a platform for local authorities and the public to explore and refine, and tackle the use of housing as a commodity so those making their first steps into the housing market aren’t being exploited.
But concerning sustainability I’ve understood that it is the shared interest, passion and goal for low impact living that’s had the influence on cohousing communities, members have signed up to be a part of a sustainable community by choice. Some communities have put everything into being sustainable and others, out of the lack of fund for the most extravagant new sustainable technology have found different more sustainable approaches alongside their architects. But If councils begin providing social housing through cohousing, would it be as effective on groups of complete strangers? Should sustainable house design should be a mandatory practice?
44
45
Bibliography
1.
Architype. (2017) Springhill Co-Housing. At: http://www.architype.co.uk/project/
springhill-co-housing/. (Accessed on 4 January 2018) 2.
Barkham, P. (2014) ‘Britains Housing Crisis: are garden cities the answer?’ In: The
Guardian [online] At: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/01/britains-housingcrisis-are-gaden-cities-the-answer-ebbsfleet-kent-green-belt (Accessed on 9 Novermber 2017) 3.
BBC New (2017) ‘Garden villages: Location of the first 14 announced’ In: BBC News
[online] At: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38486907 (Accessed on 2 January 2018) 4.
Bradford, T. (2009) ‘Cohousing & Eco Development’. In: Synthesis/Regeneration’
[online]
At:
http://go.galegroup.com.ucreative.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=ucca&id=-
GALE|A206620351&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon&authCount=1 5.
Bougdah, H; Sharples, S. (2010) Technologies of Architecture: Volume 2 Environ-
ment, Technology and Sustainability. Abingdon and New York: Taylor & Francis PP 243-259 6.
Co-housing: a Future Way of Living Together, Eef Tanghe, TEDxLeuven. (2016). [vid-
eo]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6e7d8cwdLY: TEDx Talks (Accessed on 15 October 2017) 7.
Co-housing Communities help prevent social Isolation. (2017). [video] https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=DmWrx0ntATU: PBS NewsHour 8.
Co-housing for older women, (2017). BBC Radio 4. 10 April 2017. 10.00 hrs. At:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08lfbyg 9.
Conservatives. (2017) Forward Together. At: https://www.conservatives.com/mani-
festo, PP 70-72 (Accessed on 20 December 2017) 10.
Durrett, C (2009) Senior Cohousing Handbook: A Community Approach to Independ-
ent Living [online]. At: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucreative-ebooks/detail.action?docID=478531 11.
Ecological cohousing At LILAC Leeds: Paul Chatterton at TEDXLeeds. (2013). [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=WUpRHUDcqLI: TEDx Talks (Accessed
on 15 October 2017) 12.
46
First UK women’s-only co-housing community arrives in north London. (2017). [vid-
eo] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Ilvsza8IE: IBTimes UK; (Accessed on 20 September 2017) 13.
Francis, S. (2017) ‘General Election 2017: Facing London’s Housing Crisis.’ In: BBC
News [online] At: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40025487 (Accessed on 20 December 2017) 14.
Holtzman, G. (2014) ‘Community by Design, By the People: Social Approach to de-
signing and planning cohousing and ecovillage settlements’ In: Journal of Green Building, Vol. 9 1ssue 4, PP 60-82 [online] At: http://www.journalofgreenbuilding.com.ucreative.idm.oclc.org/ doi/pdf/10.3992/1943-4618-9.3.60. (Accessed on 5 January 2018) 15.
Housing for Women. http://hfw.org.uk/
16.
Jarvis, H. (2015). Christiania Dreaming. In: Coates, C; Dennis, J; Hows, J, ed. Diggers
and Dreamers Publications, PP 49-62 17.
Labour. (2017) ‘Secure Homes for All.’ In: For the Many Not the Few: The Labour
Party Manifesto 2017. At: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf, PP 59-64 (Accessed on 20 December 2017) 18.
Lancaster Cohousing. http://www.lancastercohousing.org.uk/
19.
Lilac. An Experimental Model in affordable community led housing. (2016). [video].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=962&v=R-wngx7v_eU: House of Commons. (Accessed on 5 Novermber 2017) 20.
LOLC, London Older Lesbian Cohousing. http://lolcohousing.co.uk/
21.
Madden, D; Marcuse, P. (2016). In Defence of Housing: The Political Crisis. London:
Verso 22.
Marcus, C (2000). ‘Site planning, building design and a sense of community: an
analysis of cohousing schemes in Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands’ In: The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research; Summer 2000, Vol. 17 Issue 2, PP 146-163 [online] At:
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ucreative.idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=7c2
39828-e247-45a6-a92d-8f244ead6f6d%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=505851235&db=aft. 23.
Meltzer, G (2000). ‘Cohousing: Verifying the Importance of Community in the ap-
plication of Environmentalism’ In: The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research; Summer 2000, Vol. 17 Issue 2, PP 110-132 [online] At: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ucreative. idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=7c239828-e247-45a6-a92d-8f244ead6f6d%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=505851237&db=aft (Accessed on 23 December 2017) 24.
Miles, M. (2008). Urban Utopias: The Built and Social Architectures of Alternative
Settlements. London and New York: Routledge PP 209-213 25.
Modcell. (2017) LILAC affordable ecological co-housing At: http://www.modcell.
com/projects/lilac-affordable-ecological-co-housing/ (Accessed on 23 December 2017)
26.
47 Moorhead, J. (2010) ‘It’s like a mini Centre Parcs’ In: The Guardian [online] At:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/may/01/cohousing-community-stroud 27.
Norwood, G. (2013). ‘Co-housing: A lifestyle with Community Spirit Built into Its
Foundation.’ In: The Guardian [online] At: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/feb/24/ co-housing-lifestyle-community. (Accessed on 15 October 2017) 28.
OWCH - Older Women’s Co-housing. http://www.owch.org.uk/
29.
Pickerill, J. (2016) Eco-homes: People Place and Politics. London: Zed Books PP 140-
146 30.
Penington Cohousing. http://www.pencohousing.org.uk
31.
PollardThomasEdwards (2017) New Ground Cohousing At: http://pollardthomased-
wards.co.uk/project/owch/ (Accessed on 26 December 2017) 32.
Šašse- Divjak, M. (2000). ‘New forms Of Dwelling.’ In: Urbani Izziv, Vol 11, No.12,
Drugočno Bivanje. PP 142-145 [online] At: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44180788.pdf 33.
Scotthanson, C; Scotthanson, K. (2005). The Cohousing Handbook: Building A Place
For Community [online] At: http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Ecovillages_and_Low_Impact_ Development/Cohousing/The_Cohousing_Handbook-Building_a_Place_for_Community.pdf 34.
Springhill Cohousing. http://www.therightplace.net/coco/public/index.html#histo-
ry 35.
Sutton, R. (2005). Modern American Communes: A Dictionary. Connecticut: Green-
wood Publishing Group. PP 28 (Accessed on 20 September 2017) 36.
The Older Women’s Co-Housing Project: Profile. (2011). [video]. https://www.you-
tube.com/watch?v=MfgnD5fsbpQ: GiantTurnipFilms (Accessed on 20 September 2017) 37.
UK Cohousing Network. https://cohousing.org.uk
38.
UK Cohousing Network, (2015) Cohousing, At: https://cohousing.org.uk/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2017/03/uk-cohousing-leaflet.pdf (Accessed on 14th December 2017) 39.
UK’s First senior co-housing project. (2016). [video]. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
av/uk-35480989/uk-s-first-senior-co-housing-project: BBC News (Accessed on 15 October 2017) 40.
Vestbro, D. (2000) ‘From Collective Housing to Cohousing – A Summary of Rea-
search’ In: The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research; Summer 2000, Vol. 17 Issue 2, PP 164-178 [online] At: (Accessed on 23 December 2017) 41.
Wainwright, O. (2017). ‘I’m dumfounded!... Neave Brown on bagging an award for
a building that killed his career.’ In: The Guardian [online] At: https://www.theguardian.com/ artanddesign/2017/oct/06/im-dumbfouded-neave-brown-the-genius-of-social-housing-onwinning-an-awaard-for-the-building-that-ended 42.
Wardill, J. (2017). ‘Leeds housing focus; Cohousing – time to go European?’ In: The
Yorkshire Evening Post [online] At: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/leeds-housing-focus-cohousing-time-to-go-european-1-8727007 (Accessed on 21 December 2017) 43.
Weaver, M. (2017). ‘How did the crisis in UK social housing happen?’ In: The Guard-
ian [online] At: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/04/how-did-the-crisis-in-uksocial-housing-happen (Accessed on 14th December 2017)
44.
What Is Co-housing? (2015). [video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwhMI-
48
jEqbjk: Housing planning Help. 45.
White Designs (2017) Balehaus, At: https://www.white-design.com/architecture/
all-projects/balehaus/ (Accessed on 23 December 2017) 46.
White Designs (2017) LILAC Co housing, At: https://www.white-design.com/archi-
tecture/all-projects/lilac/ (Accessed on 23 December 2017)
49
List Of Illustrations
Figure 1: ‘For Sale and Sold Signs’ (2017) [Photograph] At: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ business/news/uk-house-prices-latest-updates-november-property-market-housingsales-a8109166.html Figure 2: ‘The rise and fall of council house building’ (2017) [Graph: The change in Council house built between 1949 and 2010] At: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/04/how-did-thecrisis-in-uk-social-housing-happen Figure 3: ‘Ebbsfleet Garden City Developement’ (2015) [Photograph: Birds eye view of developement progress in 2015] At: http://ebbsfleetdc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/flip-planning.jpg Figure 4: Ebbsfleet Garden City ‘The Vision’ (2016) [Drawing: Proposal of Ebbsfleet Garden City’s city centre] At: http://ebbsfleetdc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/4-Fastrack-High-St-lowres.jpg Figure 5: Sættrdammen, (2014) [Photograph: Group photo of the residents of Sættrdammen] At: https:// www.facebook.com/150115865048360/photos/a.371451832914761.88314.15011586504836 0/842903702436236/?type=3&theater Figure 6: Hässelby FamiljeHotell, [Photograph: Bird eye view of the Hässelby FamiljeHotell developement] At: http://familjehotellet.se/foton.html Figure 7: ‘What would Your Cohousing Community look like’ (2015) [Diagram: Various facilities typically found in cohousing communities] At: https://cohousing.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ uk-cohousing-leaflet.pdf
50
Figure 8: ‘The Route to Cohousing’ (2015) [diagram] At: https://cohousing.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2017/03/uk-cohousing-leaflet.pdf Figure 9:
‘New Ground Cohousing Developement’ [Photograph: View from garden of OWCH’s New ground Developement] At: http://pollardthomasedwards.co.uk/project/owch/ Figure 10: New Ground Site Plan, (2015) [Drawing: Planning stage site plan drawings of the New Ground developement by the Architects] At. https://publicaccess.barnet.gov.uk/online-applications/ files/98DBFFD14BF0D0318B50EB5712A66B1C/pdf/15_03758_S73-REVISED_PLAN-3192909. pdf. Figure 11: ‘New Ground Residents’ [Photograph: New Ground residents on the balcony of their new home] At: http://pollardthomasedwards.co.uk/project/owch/ Figure 12: ‘LILAC’s Pond’ [Photograph: view of LILAC from the bank of the drainage pond] At: http://www.modcell.com/news/lilac-affordable-ecological-co-housing/ Figure 13: Lilac’s Site Plan, (2011) [Drawing: Architects site plan drawing of LILAC] At: http://www. msaudcolumbia.org/summer/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/siteplan-aug-2011.jpg Figure 14: ‘LILAC’s Straw Walls’ [Photograph: View of Glass frame that reveals the internal wall build up of the houses at LILAC] At: http://www.lilac.coop/image-gallery/ Figure 15: ‘LILAC’s Residents’ (2013) [Photograph: Children at LILAC playing in the street] At: http://www. modcell.com/news/lilac-official-opening/ Figure 16: Cohousing Communities in the UK, (2015) [Mapping: Location of cohousing developements the are completed, developing and forming groups around the UK] At: https://cohousing.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2017/03/uk-cohousing-leaflet.pdf. Figure 17: ‘Springhill Cohousing’ [Photograph: View of the Commn House at Spring Hill] At: http://www. architype.co.uk/project/springhill-co-housing/ Figure 18: ‘Lancaster Cohousing’ (2015) [Photograph: View down one of the streets at Lancaster Cohousing]
At:
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/lancaster-cohousing-by-eco-
arc/8670140.article Figure 19: ‘Penington Cohousing Proposal’ [Drawing: architect’s drawing from the groups first proposal] At: http://www.pencohousing.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/5156_Penington-CohousingMeeting-2_-reduced-file.pdf