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.