Optimizacija „cohousing”-a: uticaj veličine zajednice na korišćenje zajedničkih prostora i organizacionu održivost
Sažetak
Istraživanje ima za cilј dublјe razumevanje odnosa između veličine „cohousing” zajednica i distribucije zajedničkih prostora, uz primenu kriterijuma analize kao što su veličina, raspored i funkcija ovih prostora. Postavlјena je hipoteza da postoji obrnuta proporcija između veličine zajednice i procenta zajedničkih prostora u odnosu na ukupnu površinu, što znači da veće zajednice imaju manji procenat zajedničkih prostora. Metodologija istraživanja uklјučuje pregled i analizu primera stambenih zajednica iz različitih kulturnih i urbanih konteksta, sa cilјem da se identifikuju klјučni faktori koji utiču na organizacione strukture i ekonomsku održivost ovih zajednica. Istraživanje takođe ispituje nivo samostalnosti zajednica u zavisnosti od njihove veličine i kompleksnosti. Rezultati ovog istraživanja pokazuju da je u manjim „cohousing” zajednicama veći procenat zajedničkih prostora u odnosu na ukupnu površinu, dok u većim zajednicama ovaj procenat opada. Ovaj odnos ima značajne implikacije za organizaciju, funkcionalnost i ekonomsku održivost zajednica. Istraživanje pruža nova saznanja koja mogu doprineti budućem dizajnu i organizaciji „cohousing” zajednica, sa cilјem da se očuvaju osnovne vrednosti zajedništva i saradnje, uz optimizaciju zajedničkih prostora i pobolјšanje kvaliteta života stanovnika.
Reference
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/
Sva prava zadržana (c) 2024 Arhitektura i urbanizam
Ovaj rad je pod Creative Commons Autorstvo-Deli pod istim uslovima 4.0 međunarodnom licencom.