Optimizing cohousing: the effect of community size on common space utilization and organizational sustainability
Abstract
This research aims to provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between the size of cohousing communities and the distribution of common areas, applying analysis criteria such as the size, layout, and function of these spaces. The hypothesis suggests that there is an inverse correlation between community size and the percentage of common areas relative to the total surface area, meaning that larger communities have a lower percentage of common areas. The research methodology includes a review and analysis of housing community examples from various cultural and urban contexts, aiming to identify key factors that influence the organizational structures and economic sustainability of these communities. The study also examines the level of community autonomy, based on their size and complexity. The results of this research show that smaller cohousing communities have a higher percentage of common areas relative to the total surface area, while in larger communities, this percentage decreases. This relationship has significant implications for the organization, functionality, and economic sustainability of communities. The research provides new insights that can contribute to the future design and organization of cohousing communities, aiming to preserve the core values of community and cooperation, while optimizing common spaces and improving the quality of life for residents.
References
Alfirević, Đ., Simonović Alfirević, S. 2018. Constitutive motives in living space organisation. Facta Universitatis, 16 (2), 189−201, https://doi.org/10.2298/FUACE170414002A.
Alfirević, Đ., Simonović Alfirević, S. 2020. Uloga teritorijalnosti u prostornoj organizaciji coliving zajednice. Arhitektura i urbanizam, 50, 7−19, https://doi.org/10.5937/a-u0-25785.
Babos, A., Szabó, J., Orbán, A., Benkő, M. 2020. Sharing-based co-housing categorization: A structural overview of the terms and characteristics used in urban co-housing. Épités - Épitészettudomány, 48 (3−4), 331−335, https://doi.org/10.1556/096.2020.009.
Bouma, J. T., Poelman, W. A., Voorbij, A. I. M. 2010. Supporting social contact design principles in common areas of cohousing communities. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/4722409/Supporting_social_contact_design_principles_in_common_areas_of_cohousing_communities [Accessed: 19.08.2024].
Caves, R. W. 2005. Encyclopedia of the city. London: Routledge.
Chiodelli, F., Baglione, V. 2014. Living together privately: for a cautious reading of cohousing. Urban Research & Practice, 7 (1), 20–34, https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2013.827905.
Christian, D. L. 2004. Creating a life together: Practical tools to grow. 2 izd. Vancouver: New Society Publishers.
Darling, E. M. 2017. Space for community: cohousing as an alternative density model for housing Seattle. Washington: University of Washington.
Foundation for Intentional Community. 2018. Community types. Available at: https://www.ic.org/directory/community-types/ [Accessed: 19.08.2024].
Holtzman, D. 2014. Community by design, by the people: social approach to designing and planning cohousing and ecovillage communities. Journal of green building, 9 (3), 60−82. https://doi.org/10.3992/1943-4618-9.3.60.
Jakobsen, P., Larsen, H. G. 2018. An alternative for whom? The evolution and socio-economy of Danish cohousing. Urban Research & Practice, 1−17, https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2018.1465582.
Jarvis, H. 2011. Saving space, sharing time: integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environment and Planning, 43(3), 560–577. https://doi.org/10.1068/a43296.
Lietaert, M. 2010. Cohousing’s relevance to degrowth theories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 576–580, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.11.016.
Livingston, A. 2022. Communal living & cohousing – types & benefits of intentional communities. Available at: https://www.moneycrashers.com/communal-living-cohousing-types-benefits-intentional-communities/ [Accessed: 19.08.2024].
McCamant, K., Durrett, C. 1988. Design considerations in cohousing: a contemporary approach to housing ourselves. California: Habitat Press.
McCamant, K., Durrett, C. 2011. Creating cohousing: building sustainable communities. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.
McCollum, K. 2018. Cohousing- the answer to sustainable development. Corvallis: Oregon State University.
McKenzie, E. 1994. Privatopia: homeowner associations and the rise of residential private government. Doktorska disertacija. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Medar, K., Čurčić, A. 2021. Cohousing and coliving − comparative analysis of two alternative housing typologies by reviewing contemporary trends. Facta Universitatis, 19 (1), 81−92, https://doi.org/10.2298/FUACE210329007M.
Njegić, T., Manić, B., Lojanica, V. 2022. Creating more sustainable social housing in Serbia: a conceptual framework for architectural and urban design. Facta Universitatis, 20 (2), 131−150, https://doi.org/10.2298/FUACE220411011N.
Milojević, M. 2013. Plan susedstva − norme prostorne i društvene distanciranosti. Doktorska disertacija. Beograd: Arhitektonski fakultet.
Ruiu, M. L. 2015. The social capital of cohousing communities. Sociology, 50 (2), 400−415, https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515573473.
Sanguinetti, A. (2014). Transformational practices in cohousing: Enhancing residents’ connection to community and nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 86−96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.05.003.
Scotthanson, C., Scotthanson, K. 2005. The Cohousing Handbook. Vancouver: New Society Publishers.
Tummers, L. 2015а. The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in Europe: A critical review of co-housing research. Urban Studies, 53(10), 2023−2040, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015586696.
Tummers, L. 2015b. Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: why and how?. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 64−78, https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1011427.
The cohousing association of the United States, 2008, Size matters, Available at: https://www.cohousing.org/size-matters/ [Accessed: 19.08.2024].
Vestbro, D. U. 2010. Living together-cohousing ideas and realities around the world: proceedings from the International Collaborative Housing Conference in Stockholm 5−9 May 2010. Copenhagen: Division of urban and regional studies, Royal Institute of Technology in collaboration with Kollektivhus NU.
Vestbro, D. U. 2014. Kollektivhus. Available at: http://www.kollektivhus.nu/pdf/SwedishCohousing14.pdf [Accessed: 19.08.2024].
Vestbro, D. U., Horelli, L. 2012. Design for gender equality: the history of co-housing ideas and realities. Built Environment 38 (3), https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.38.3.315.
Williams, J. 2005. Designing neighbourhoods for social interaction: the case of cohousing. Journal of Urban Design, 10 (2), 195–227, https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800500086998.
А- Marina Campus, Barcelona, Spain- https://www.archdaily.com/892071/the-student-hotel-campus-marina-barcelona-masquespacio/5ac6f69af197ccbb70000597-the-student-hotel-campus-marina-barcelona-masquespacio-photo?next_project=no
Б- Stacken, Bergsjon, Gothenburg, Sweden- http://www.kollektivhus.nu/pdf/kollhist.pdf
В- Stolplyckan, Linköping, Sweden- http://www.kollektivhus.nu/pdf/SwedishCohousing14.pdf
Г- Färdknäppen, Stockholm, Sweden- https://www.fardknappen.se/public_html/In_English.html
Д- Vind song, Langley, Canada- https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/07/30/BC-Celebrates-Quarter-Century-Co-Housing/
Ђ- Collective House Seiseki, Tokio, Japan- https://chc.or.jp/chcproject/seiseki.html
Е- Jamaica Plain Co-Housing, Boston, United States- https://www.cohousing.org/directory/jamaica-plain-cohousing/
Copyright (c) 2024 Arhitektura i urbanizam
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.