Co-housing: A Shared Future

DAYALBAGH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE

COHOUSING: A SHARED FUTURE

COHOUSING AS A NEW FORM OF SOCIALIZATION IN COOPERATIVES SOCIETIES

ISHA CHAUDHARY

Roll no. 1800683

07 April 2022

B.Arch. Semester 8

ARM802 Seminar (Research Skills)

Faculty Mentor: Ar. Nancy Jain; Ar. Shradha Arora

ABSTRACT

This paper will help to understand cohousing as a new form of socialization in urban, sustainable, and affordable communities through a case study analysis This study found that cohousing is used to develop and regulate public system to simulate socializing in the surroundings, cohousing is a useful case study Further, in this research paper mention about the urban communities and the notion of cohousing. In cohousing neighbourhoods are determined by the social components and personal attributes that influences how they engage socially This study also discussed the challenges, limitations and benefits. In conclusion, to summarize how it benefits the cooperative employees in India.

Keywords: Cohousing | Urban communities | Social Interaction | Socialization | Environmental sustainability | Sustainable communities

Co-housing is a new approach to housing that has the potential to address major social, economic, and environmental challenges while also improving the quality of life for inhabitants and society as a whole.

Cohousing is where privacy and the public are sought for unity. The concept of integration, therefore, encompasses the broader intended concept. Socialization was initially thought to be reviving in recent years, as a stable response to modern social and social issues. Uncontrolled social problems of loneliness and mental retardation and physical limitations, strategies.

The presented urban communities should not be understood as existing segments of the community. Urban communities can exist as co-existent, co-operative or non-co-operative, fragmented, or exist as separate communities. It is a place where communities can interact, where people belong to various groups and have diverse behaviours, lives, and so on.

For example, if a group of people invites for community activities like communal lunch, it creates interaction between the members of the community. Communities, such as a knitting club, share a local community hall near a major chess club. The two adjacent communities coexist in the same area, except for the interdependence of those methods in which these communities can share. Once feel that by putting a visible expression in the visual framework of these communities, this can be easily accomplished in an urban setting.

Figure 1. Cohousing Network 2021 (Source: landscapearchitect.com)

Aim:

To study the various aspects of cohousing as a catalyst in urban communities.

Objectives:

1. To collect the literature data regarding cohousing communities

2. To study case studies and understand how cohousing societies work.

Research Questions:

1. How does social cohesion help keep people active in managing their communities?

2. How do community recruitment and participation play out? (Regarding gender, culture, age, class, etc.)

Methodology: Three co-housing projects were used to better understand the growth of co-housing. Through these Case Studies, one can understand the variances and similarities in people's lives, as well as their actions and ideas. Furthermore, the study summarizes the different stages of development and characteristics of different co-housing groups in Denmark, as well as looks into how co-housing can play a role as an environmental sustainability tool for guiding change in behavior and developing a more connected, equitable, and resilient environment.

Figure 2. Methodology (Source: Author)

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. HISTORY

Cohousing has a significant history and has experienced different stages. These phases were mainly influenced by the people who want to live in that specific area regularly.

Utopian communities

The book "Utopia" was written by English author Thomas More in 1516. This is one of the first texts to describe good human settlements. The perfect location is described as a one-of-a-kind restaurant and leisure facility. Although European utopian societies were not as rich as those in the United States, industrial growth created a concept of equality in which citizens could work and live in harmony (Vestbro, 2010).

An industrial revolution began in England toward the close of the eighteenth century. Even though productivity was high due to an increase in mill workers, mill owners did not overlook working conditions or workers (New Lanark-Robert Owen Museum, 2016). Toward the end of the 18th century, an industrial revolution occurred in England. Despite increased output due to an increase in mill workers, mill owners did not overlook working conditions or workers (New Lanark-Robert Owen Museum, 2016).

Contrary to popular belief, industrialist Robert Owen, who assumed leadership of the New Lanark industrial town, was sympathetic to the concerns of employees and strove to improve the working and living conditions. This was owing to his idea that circumstances shape human character, and hence better conditions can lead to more beauty and production (Bloy, 2016). The atmosphere of New Lanark reflects a concept of living and working with respected social organizations to improve the individual's social well-being.

Another movement, the Familistere, was launched by a French manufacturer and social crusader Jean Andre Baptiste Godin in the nineteenth century. In northern France, he was constructing a vast factory, courtyards, and housing quarters for all of the families, all of which were united by a large glass wall (Vestbro, 2010). The goal was also to provide services that allowed employees to collaborate and live in a well-developed environment.

2.2. COHOUSING

Charles Durrett and Kathryn McCamant introduced the term ‘cohousing’ in their book, 1984. Therefore, this can be a group, a partnership, a partnership, or a community, so the merger can be seen in a very broad context. Collaboration is an official name; it is a form of ownership and can be a form of merger. Living together can be collaborative, participatory, or community. Although current literature on coexistence confuses co-operative houses, cohousing is a general concept of living together. Cooperative housing does not always imply living together; it might be single-family homes with no communal or shared areas, and some communities do not allow apartment ownership. Collective housing, on the other hand, may refer to housing that is based on interdependence, whereas public housing can be defined as a community that is primarily motivated by the development of a sense of community.

The term “cohousing" is derived from “cooperative housing" and refers to a type of housing that may provide a solution to the dwelling crisis. A new shared living concept aims to foster meaningful relationships, social networking, and energy-saving strategies. In the 1960s, Denmark was the birthplace of socialism. It became the first attempt in Denmark and the Netherlands to achieve social cohesion and brotherly love. Cohousing formations were later found in Sweden, the Netherlands,

Figure 3. Layout Chapeltown Cohousing (Source: theconversation.com)

Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the North. With the aid of residing together, citizens are devoted to dwelling together as a community and reaping the blessings of a supportive verbal exchange network.

Basic social situations are established (a) with the assistance of logic; (b) a framework for participating in community procedures; (c) access to private and public offerings; (d) the size of the organization to aid social change; and (e) self-law and self-regulation. are recommended to participate in the creation of a virtual building, website making plans, sharing sources, and the management of their residences.

The principal motive of uniting groups is to reduce housing fees, together with hire, automobile ownership, and electricity use. Its objectives are to create a “friendly environment” to redefine the relationships among neighbouring units. By staying close to the "public space" yet maintaining privacy and independence. Cohousing communities are entirely founded on a common vision, not just on the most efficient resources and sources, but also on systems, decision-making procedures, and preexisting abilities.

Besides the social experience, residents in cohousing communities have interaction with the environment. Bioenergy healing systems, compost, and solar energy are examples of sustainable innovations that can be officially introduced to the community. People are influenced to live a greener, healthier lifestyle by the co-housing model. Planting vegetables and fruits on-site, for example, might help feed the community while also nourishing the soil and reducing environmental impact.

Figure 4 The relation of personal and social factors. (Source: Adapted from Clitheroe (1998)

Enhanced neighbourhood interactions provide a social benefit, potentially saving costs and minimizing consequences while also improving people's lifestyles and perspectives. Individuals can think beyond themselves, to consider their impact on a wider environment and the community.

The communal facilities and structure encourage resource sharing, from carpooling and shared washing machines to bulk food purchases for communal and individual meals, as well as the sharing of gardening and building maintenance tools. These practices, in addition to fruit and vegetable gardening, composting, rainwater collection, "green roof" construction, and waste sorting, inspire cohousing residents to live sustainably and creatively, not only create a lovely living environment but also to make the most of the site while minimizing their environmental impact. As a result, co-housing has a huge potential to contribute to the long-term development of the neighbourhood, i.e., making it more liveable while keeping housing costs low.

In terms of its citizens' financial capacities, India's social model is that, given current conditions, living together as a model will be more effective when dealing with low-income organizations than with financially deprived people. This is because consolidation consumes a significant number of financial resources and borrowing power. However, as it can cost about 15-20% less than a similar improved house built with the same standards, it is called the affordable housing model.

Figure 5 Various forms of cohousing model (Source: Jo Williams (2008))

3. URBAN COMMUNITIES

The community can take several different forms and is not as homogeneous as it was believed to be there in the pre-industrial period when this was largely fostered by the families or as a unit within a closed community. The contemporary community could take the form of personal interactions or longterm connections between people.

Even though the city now has a diverse range of communities, we believe that for new urban communities to grow, the city must be perceived as a common, shared grazing ground that everyone must protect. By carefully planning the urban landscape, bringing together a broad group of people, and forcing and encouraging them to interact, these communities can target various people, different engagements, and different needs.

3.1. INTRODUCING COHOUSING IN URBAN COMMUNITIES

The introduction of urban fabric living will create a new agenda, exposing new lifestyles that emphasize living together and integrating city design in the fight against loneliness. The next chapter will introduce the notion of community housing, which was first introduced in Denmark in 1967 as a means of addressing a societal issue. From Saettedammen, the first cohousing, to UrbaniaCPH, a community house still in the planning stages, three Danish communities living together will be studied. These three examples show varied motivations for starting a community, and we'll look at some of them. This chapter also focuses on how regular low-cost housing should be viewed in the context of urbanization.

Figure 6 Urban Communities (Source: essays.com)

4. THE NOTION OF COHOUSING

There are a few ways to identify a place to reside on a worldwide scale, and it largely depends on the context in which one seeks ideas. Cohousing is a sort of home that combines privacy and is open to a sense of community. The two dwellings could be the only ones in the area, but they're only a block away from a public building or a building with reckless accommodation planned for the area. It isn't a particularly noteworthy construction. What matters is that community members commit in a spirit of commitment to a variety of practical and social duties in everyday life. However, there is indeed a great level of isolation, as well as the possibility of retreating to private dwellings. Although living space provides a certain level of privacy, the concept of coexistence spans a wider focus, where young people, families with children, and adults can live together.

As a result of the large-scale integration of resources via communal areas, socialization has resulted in an increase in loneliness in the city. In the spirit of creating cohesion, parts of each area are supplied for the benefit of the community and directed to the same locations, where everyone has access to a unified vision. Housing can be incompatible with our current environment. Sharing automobiles, electronics, consumables, or resources, living a natural or sustainable life, or a passion for caring for the needs of others are all examples of social responsibility. It is vital to analyze the present cohabitation of incentives and diverse approaches to understand the reason for integrated housing development and the process linked to the creation of these houses. Furthermore, it is critical to comprehend the influence of integrated housing and integrated plans in the neighbourhood to facilitate communication at new meetings.

4.1.

COHOUSING IN DENMARK

Figure 7 Cohousing in Denmark (Source: journaltheaou.org)

The expansion of bofaelleskab (group settlement) in various parts of Denmark started in the 1970s and has persisted to this day. The first cohousing was developed for 27 families near Copenhagen by a Danish architect and psychologist, with Bodil Graae's 1967 serving as inspiration in the article, All Children Must Have 100 Parents''. During a tour to Denmark in the 1980s, Charles Durrett and Kathryn McCamant of the United States found inspiration in this original test of the union. Citizens, particularly those from the middle class who have had a great education, have access to private and communal common spaces that are created to the excellent design specifications. Although these initiatives were rarely political or religious, they did show a connection between adults, students, and low-income people.

4.2. COOPERATIVE HOUSING IN INDIA

Cohousing contrasts with co-ops in that it allows both individual housing ownership while still incorporating the development of commonly-shared spaces. Co-operatives, on the other hand, have a lot in common with cohabitation, especially in terms of governance, design development, and concepts about social, economic, and environmental sustainability. In India, coalition houses have been in operation since the early 1900s in the Bombay region (now Maharashtra). Although the movement began about 90 years ago, it flourished in the 1950's following World War II and India's independence (Khurana, 2002). In India, one of the key motivations for the development of cooperatives was the government's inability to provide homes for the rapidly rising population. In addition, it has been recognized that it will be extremely difficult to provide affordable and inclusive housing without the involvement of end-users and the private sector (Tiwari and Rao, 2016).

Figure 8 Cooperative housing (Source: indiancooperative.com)

5. CASE SELECTION

5.1. 1972 - SAETTEDAMMEN

Hillerod, Denmark, 1972

Residents: 70

Dwelling units: 27

Bodil Graae encouraged people to contact her if they wanted to start a new way of life with their family and improve their habits and circumstances. A few individuals replied to his proposal, and in 1972, they constructed the saettedammen, Denmark's first residences. Yes, they are prompted by the past and old beliefs of global habitation, but they are the first social societies founded on a vision and shared ideas for revolutionizing families' lives.

They wanted to make a positive impact on the environment, and they recognized that the family's environment had a huge impact on us and that we were the only ones who could make a real change. They thought it was absurd to restrict how something as significant as a community may be experienced due to contractual profit, the municipality's unclear objectives or money, or the naivety of an accident.

Figure 9 Saettedammen site plan (Source: Pinterest)

Facilities and Initiatives:

Saettedammen contains a single communal dwelling as well as shared laundry facilities. They have outside spaces where cars are not permitted, allowing children to run around freely while remaining safe. An integrated living area with numerous playgrounds appears to focus on the initial aim of improving conditions for children and their pursuit of fun.

Residents of Saettedammen can attend a community supper held in a typical house up to four times each week. Residents can participate in a variety of activities in addition to the weekly meal and Friday gathering, including hiking, rabbit breeding, many orchestras, summer, Christmas, New Year's, and mid-summer in part, Saint Luca march, and many others. (2017, Saettedammen)

Architecture and Typology:

Cohousing (Source: Arkitekturbilleder)

In Saettedammen, the buildings are clustered around a common open area.

Residential developers were concerned about the prospect of individual remodeling. It was critical to have the flexibility to plan private living at all phases of life, allowing people to live a full life in their living space. As a result, architects Theo Bajerg and Palle Dyreborg were employed by the assembly organization. Architects had fixed interior walls, a single central beam, and easily detachable interior walls just a few years ago. The Saettedammen is the lone example of a construction plan that has never been done before.

"Adult LEGO blocks" are among the occupants' structures. Several dwellings have been transformed since 1972, and some have even developed little 'collections' as a result of families disintegrating and one or even more families organizing and embracing new residents to share their living space. Annexes and shelters have been added to several structures (Saettedammen 2017, Bendixen et al. 1997).

Figure 10 View of Saettedammen

5.2. 1992 – ANDELSSAMFUNDET HJORTSHOJ

Hjortshoj, Demark, 1992

No. of users - 270- 170 adults; 100 children

Dwelling units: 119 divided into 8 dwelling groups

Andelssamfundet Hjortshoj was the first to propose that people live their lives on this planet without leaving any residue. The first structures were created in 1992, and their methods of construction were revolutionary at the time. Some may argue that houses were socially constructed and covered in clay, establishing resilience before or after much. The houses were demolished for many years from the initial step to the real operation in an attempt to persuade the Aarhus Municipality that dwellings could be built out of clay, compacted soil, and unstructured wood. They were able to do so after completing a test room, and the first seating group was able to get up. Group 2 came just after the brick buildings that the occupants had built themselves (Andelssamfundet Hjortshoj 2015).

Sustainable housing represents several assessments in the fields of sustainable housing, energy, subdivision, building materials, and buildings. When society was created twenty-four years ago, it was far before the legislation, and environmentally friendly standards were commonplace. However, today's building demands are expanding, and structures built before 1992 cannot compete with new ones. However, as civilization evolves, new and inventive techniques to create continually while conserving energy are being investigated. Even the strongest ones. Existing electricity, solar heat, solar cells, local heating stations in businesses, a cutting-edge engine, and a stove heater are all part of Andelssamfundet Hjortshoj's power supply.

Figure 11 Andelssamfundet Hjortshoj (Source: facebook.com)

Facilities and Initiatives:

In the social community, there are five common houses, which means that several groups share one home. A washing room, a kitchen, a huge dining room, a binge-eating area, and a variety of local establishments such as a theater, bar, and audio systems are all offered. Residents can sign up for and use two shared electric automobiles for a modest monthly charge at the residence. On Wednesdays, you can get coffee, tea, and bread for a token charge from the cafe.

As part of its public spirit, Andelssamfundet Hjortshoj maintains one residential group that houses 16 people with special needs. So the community has a few protected workshops among these modest stores where they sell live meat, eggs from their hens, bread made in the communal kitchen, and leftover supper packages for monthly meals.

Apart from cattle, co-housing features a vegetable community, which is open to both community members and Hjortshoj inhabitants. Fruits and vegetables are more comfortable collecting as much as they need when they are ripe. For 100 members, they pay for a ride for the year (1100 km.). Every individual participates in the preservation of plants and vegetables, and also when fruits and vegetables are ripe, people can collect as much as they need. They are also able to connect with the local community in this way.

Architecture and Typology:

Owner-occupied housing, leasehold housing, and social housing are all available in Andelssamfundet Hjortshoj in a variety of architectural styles and ownerships. Many of the homes were created by the residents themselves, who experimented with alternative sustainable building methods, resulting in architecture that is diverse and creative. octagon buildings, a longhouse, and round wooden balconies are among the honorable mentions.

Figure 12 View of Hjortshoj Cohousing (Source: andelssamfundet.dk)

5.3. URBANIA - COPENHAGEN

Maximum distance 5 km from Copenhagen's Town Hall Square.

Dwelling units: 100

The first movement of Urbania's motivations, like the Saettedammen, was written in 2009 by Anne Metter Lozentzen, the originator of what became Urbania. She had the idea when he was cutting down a fence in her garden and recognized that the fence was a symbol of a trend that she didn't like. She began writing the story while considering the city route - contemplating the ancient houses that are generally positioned far from the city, which is dominated by low-rise structures. Urbania's purpose is for residents to live in a socially secure community where they can meet a diverse group of individuals who share a similar desire to live and grow from each other.

The community is also concerned about environmental sustainability and is looking for a fresh property on which to grow its food (Urbania 2017). In general, the future structure and environment must make it easier to live a sustainable lifestyle. The fact that the town hall square is 5 kilometers away means that there is less need for powered vehicles, making cycling more convenient. As a result, a bike park and a bike repair shop are in the works; nevertheless, if a car is required, the community will pool its vehicles (Urbania 2017).

As part of the larger community, Urbania CPH aspires to develop a community of 100 dwellings with comparable residential groups. The basic idea is to create a single building that can be inhabited by all residents and in which everyone offers 20% of their private space to the community, allowing for the development of distinctive small clusters as "grain" facilities.

Urbania will work with a community housing group to develop several small companies and residences for persons with modest resources (such as students or people earning exchanges) (Urbania 2017).

Facilities and Initiatives:

Among the intended amenities are a preschool, woodwork studio, bike repair studio, clay and clothing workbench, community gardens, and a communal canteen. As "pleasant" amenities, a Turkish Hamam, an orangery, a sweat hut, musical training facilities, a cafe, and an entertainment area will be added to these activities.

Architecture and Typology:

As with the previous two case studies, the architecture of Urbania will be substantially distinct from standard cohousing. The Urbania will thus be a new type of high-rise cohousing and urban residence, based on the plot ratio and density. Several communal cohousing activities would be personal, and others will be available to the public, leading to an aesthetic gradient of transparency ranging from a relatively open sphere at the bottom to a very private domain at the top (Urbania 2017).

6. CHALLENGES OF COHOUSING

The unique characteristics of co-housing environments, such as the intention to establish houses and small communities, participatory planning processes with residents, and community-focused operations, may not always match the current world of co-housing schemes and their funders. Its development can be influenced by several factors, such as personal experience, level of education, government policies, culture and guarantee criteria of public and private funders. Co-housing can be an innovative community model to increase residents' interactions with each other and with nature.

The co-housing community uses more sustainable technology built into the house, but at the same time, the risk that the technology will take up maintenance time and energy is disproportionate. In other words, it is very important to strike a balance between having green technology and what is acceptable to the population. Usually, most environmental protection measures are related to the behavior of the population. This will make collecting data for this study more difficult and it will also remain uncertain how the co-housing scheme will work across the wider population. The co-housing study becomes a milestone of the evolution of housing provision, leading to the change of people’s thinking and behaviour.

Finally, co-housing communities can also encourage residents to interact with nature and sustainable food production, for example, supporting local food systems. However, food self-sufficiency is still a big challenge, and this can be limited to land, environmental and climatic factors. In addition, it is necessary to support co-housing groups from the government's point of view by exploring more possibilities of public funding to make these housing schemes available and affordable to different social groups, such as young couples and young families. Also, due to the long development process, where the group looks for finance is a future question to consider. This will help reduce development time and get more people involved in the project if they are interested.

This study collaboratively analyses cohousing studies to obtain a better knowledge of the benefits, constraints, and forms of social cohesiveness. Numerous contemporary cohousing models need not represent comprehensive sustainable development, and the concept of the Cohousing community emerged to design and implement solutions. The next step in integrating cohousing with sustainable development is to increase a community that encompasses creative landscape and architectural design, diversity, community, and characteristics of sustainable design. The cohousing approach may adapt to changing demands of its inhabitants with the assistance of different adaptations. Retrofit Cohousing is a viable solution since it combines an existing situation with a wider level of diversity. It also promotes the restoration of construction materials into the resources process.

Many cohousing projects, there is an aim to balance values of affordability. Normally, the financial cost of cohousing is influenced by the same cost factors as all other types of housing; they include land prices, construction costs, development finance, community planning and maintenance costs. At the same time, the cost of living is also affected by the size of the community. In other words, the number of households will directly influence the cost and the quality of living. Some cohousing schemes provide financial support for the low- and moderate-income groups.

Cooperative employees have lack of social interaction, which can reduce the quality of social relationships and increasing our social isolation. Cohousing offers a solution to isolation and loneliness with many upsides: a community of support and trust, shared meals and experiences, tight bonds and and even improved mental and physical health. Members determine their own balance of privacy and social interaction, creating the community living experience they want.

Cohousing development that are discussed as follows: (1) generating of communitas (the sense of sharing and intimacy that develops among persons who experience liminality as a group ) builds bonds and helps strengthens communities, (2) diversifying of communities leads to greater inclusion, and (3) additional implementation of sustainable design elements within developments.

Low-income family members can live in shared accommodation societies since modular construction can reduce the cost of constructing housing properties and shared dwellings. The transition of lowincome families to cohousing will aid in the establishment of much more diversity. To address environmental and social aspects of sustainability, passive housing criteria can also be implemented in new housing projects.

Since the development that is currently developing will not promote following generations, there will need to be a transformation in the dynamics of our house building in the future. Cohousing, retrofit cohousing and cluster dwellings are all viable choices for long-term developments. Cohousing is a oneof-a-kind alternative that can be sustained through enhancing analysis of a wide range.

In each example, the process of creating a cohousing was led by a group of activists who shared a set of values and views about how life could be improved. Integration ideas, as well as the organization and everyday life, convey a variety of motives. Saettedammen was based on a social issue, addressed by Bodil grace, who brought the children to live with their neighbors and thus created a better environment for the children to grow up in. The Hjortshoj campaign was largely based on addressing the growing climate. challenges and the effort to show a way of life in harmony with an environment that leaves little or no trace in the world. The impetus behind Urbania stems from the difficulty of coping with society in the ways we communicate and live in modern cities. All three organizations base their beliefs on the social issues of their day. The motivation for establishing a meeting today can come from current social issues, such as increased global resource use, an effort to mitigate climate change, or as these projects suggest: addressing the broader problem of loneliness. If you are proposing the current urbanization, it would make sense to support you in the great challenges people face.

Cohousing is sometimes confused with cooperatives; however, it differs from the cooperative model in a way that, the cooperative is the owner of the house and the residents are renters, further, there isn’t always an emphasis on sharing of space and resources. The cohousing model can enable the residents to be owners rather than renters, a criterion which is extremely critical in the cultural context of India and provides a setting for a far higher degree of social contact and development owing to its management and spatial structure.

Cohousing could be cooperative, collaborative or communal. Cohousing is more of an umbrella term, although the current literature of cohousing confuses cohousing with cooperative housing. Cooperative housing does not directly imply cohousing since it could be housing without common spaces or shared facilities, further cooperative housing does not allow self-ownership of apartments. On the other hand, collaborative housing could refer to housing which is focused on collaboration between residents while communal housing could be referred to as housing specifically oriented towards developing a sense of community as its prime motive

To summarize, the vision of ecologically and socially environmental sustainability is a combination of integrating diversification and sustainable building aspects and also prioritizing people for shared advancement. It has also contributed to our understanding of how architecture, social, and personal components interact and enhance one another in cohousing to enhance social interaction. The impact of certain design features on social interactions has been investigated, including how the appearance, functional versatility, facilities and entrepreneurial spirit, and layout of social amenities and the variety of activities provided within them affect interactions, and also how the gathering, inversion, and constraints on facilities in private establishments affect socializing.

8. LIST OF FIGURES

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abu-Gazzeh, T. (1999) Housing layout, social interaction and the place of contact in Abu-nuseir, Jordan, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, pp. 14–7.

Altman, I. (1975) The Environment and Social Behaviour (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole).

Baum, A. & Valins, S. (1977) Architecture and Social Behaviour: Psychological Studies of Social Density (NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

Birchall, J. (1988) Building Communities the Co-operative Way (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).

CoHousing Cultures (2012). Berlin: id22: Institue for Creative Sustainability: experiment city. Co-operative Housing International (2016). India. Available from http://www.icahousing.coop/co-ops/india [Accessed 28 December 2016].

Cowan, D. and Marsh, A. (2004). Community, Neighbourhoods, Responsibilities: Contemporary Currents in Housing Studies.

Swapnil Rohidas Kangankar Berlin, (2017) Prototypical Low-Impact Housing for Mumbai’s expanding Middle-Income Group: Lessons from European Cohousing

https://issuu.com/mariamortensen/docs/come_together_-__urban_co-housing_a

Jingjing Wang; Karim Hadjri (2017) The_role_of_co-housing_in_building_sustainable_com.pdf

McCollum Kirra (2017), Cohousing- The Answer to Sustainable Development

William, Jo (2005), Designing Neighbourhoods for social Interaction: The case of cohousing, Journal of Urban Design