Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The effects of cohousing on the social housing system: the case of the Threshold Centre

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work aims to assess whether cohousing communities might generate positive effects in terms of social housing. Cohousing projects are “supportive” communities where many types of informal support networks arise, referring to the concept of sharing spaces, facilities, but also properties, the decision-making process, and experiences. The costs of the sites and construction are often higher than a “normal condominium” (especially if they are resident-led communities), and sometimes, they might be responsible for the failure of the groups: inhabitants of those communities born spontaneously, without any kind of public aid, are mainly from a medium–high socio-economic status. However, in the UK, where cohousing follows mainly a grassroots model, some communities are able to keep the costs down, in particular by the creation of mixed tenure systems, collaboration with Housing Associations and self-building processes. The Threshold Centre in England allocates 50 % of the residential units for social housing. The collaboration with a Housing Association produced a “good housing” model, which allowed both a reduction in construction time and a guarantee of the creation of a heterogeneous group (but with a compact identity), as well as the inclusion of socio-economically vulnerable people.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Dorset (2010), housing prices are higher (£263.916) than South West (£228.940) and England (£240.033) (Office for National Statistics 2012).

References

  • Bamford, G. (2001). Bringing us home: cohousing and the environmental possibilities of reuniting people with neighbourhoods. University of Queensland Library. Retrieved October 23, 2010, from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:13658/BamfordBringing2001.pdf.

  • Biraghi, G. (2011). Niente panico! Siamo in città… Come il cohousing può cambiare le metropoli contemporanee. Retrieved September 9, 2009, from http://www.cohousing.it/images/stories/approfondimenti/il_cohousing_e_la_citta.pdf.

  • Blank, J. (2001). Common meals in cohousing communities. Cohousing Journal (Winter), 20–34. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://www.joaniblank.com/cohousing/CommonMeals/.

  • Bouma, J. & Voorbij, L. (2009). Factors in social interaction in cohousing communities. In Paper presented at the Proceedings Lifecycle Design of Buildings, Systems and Materials Enschede Conference, The Netherlands.

  • Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social: notes provisoires. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 31, 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–260). New York: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenton, M. (1998). We’re in charge: Cohousing communities for older people in The Netherlands: Lessons for Britain?. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenton, M. (2008). The cohousing approach to ‘lifetime neighbourhoods’. Factsheet n: Housing Learning and Improvement Network. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. R. (2004). Comparative analysis of energy consumption trends in cohousing and alternate housing arrangements. Massachusetts: Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1997). The power of identities the information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterton, P. (2013). Towards an agenda for post-carbon cities. Lessons from Lilac, the UK’s first ecological affordable cohousing community. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1654–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiodi, S. (2012). Città-campagna: abitare in-comune. Sociologia Urbana e Rurale, 97, 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Communities and Local Government (2010–2011). Mean and median weekly rents net of services by region, 2009–2010 and 2010–2011. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingsurveys/englishhousingsurvey/ehstables/ehshouseholdtables/socialprivaterenters/.

  • Dioguardi, G. (2001). Ripensare la città. Roma: Donzelli Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, M. (2004). Thinking about cohousing. The creation of intentional neighborhoods. London: Diggers and Dreamers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francescato, D. (2010). “The Shrinking of Utopia”: dalle Comuni degli anni ‘60 al cohousing del 2000. In A. Sapio (Ed.), Famiglie, reti familiari e cohousing Verso nuovi stili del vivere, dell’abitare (pp. 173–210). Milano: Franco Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromm, D. (1991). Collaborative communities: Cohousing, central living and other forms of new housing with shared facilities. New York: Van Nostrad Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromm, D. (2000). American cohousing: the first five years. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(2), 94–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (1999). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoch, C., & Hemmens, G. C. (1967). Linking informal and formal help: Conflict along the continuum of care. Social Service Review, 61, 432–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horelli, L., & Vespa, K. (1994). In search of supportive structures for everyday life. In I. Altman & A. Churman (Eds.), Women and the environment (pp. 201–226). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, H. (2011). Saving space, sharing time: integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environment and Planning, 43, 560–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karn, J. (2004). Narratives of neglect. Community, regeneration and the governance of security. Devon: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, A. (2003). Redefining social and environmental relations at the ecovillage at Ithaca: A case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 323–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lietaert, M. (2007). Cohousing e condomini solidali. Firenze: Editrice Aam Terranuova.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lietaert, M. (2010). Cohousing’s relevance to degrowth theories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 576–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lietaert, M. (2011). Il cohousing: origini, storia ed evoluzione in Europa e nel mondo. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from http://www.cohousingitalia.it/article8844.htm.

  • Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the City. Cambridge (Mass.): Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCamant, K., & Durret, C. (2011). Creating cohousing: Building sustainable community. Canada: New Society Publichers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCamant, K., & Durrett, C. (1998). Cohousing: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijering, L., Huigen, P., & Van Hoven, B. (2007). Intentional communities in rural spaces. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 98(1), 42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meltzer, G. (2005). Sustainable community: Learning from the cohousing model. Canada: Trafford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office for National Statistics (2012). Average weekly rents: by region. Retrieved January 12, 2013, from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/index.html.

  • Paldam, M., & Svendsen, G. T. (2000). An essay on social capital: looking for the fire behind the smoke. European Journal of Political Economy, 16, 339–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickerill, J., & Chatterton, P. (2006). Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management as survival tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 30(6), 730–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poley, L. D. (2007). Community and the habits of democratic citizenship: An investigation into civic engagement, social capital and democratic capacity-building in U.S. cohousing neighborhoods, Doctoral thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

  • Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, C. (2012). Measuring National well-being—Where we live—2012. England: Office for National Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renz, M. A. (2006a). Paving consensus: Enacting, challenging, and revising the consensus process in a cohousing community. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(2), 163–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renz, M. A. (2006b). The meaning of consensus and blocking for cohousing groups. Small Group Research, 37, 351–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargisson, L. (2010). Cohousing: A Utopian property alternative? Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://www.psa.ac.uk/2010/UploadedPaperPDFs/1225_1085.pdf.

  • Sargisson, L., & Sargent, L. T. (2004). Living in Utopia: New Zealand’s intentional communities. Aldergate: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotthanson, C., & Scotthanson, K. (2005). The cohousing handbook. Building a place for community. Canada: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarozzi, A. (1992). Quale sociologia dello sviluppo. Sassari: Edizioni di iniziative culturali politiche sociali e sviluppo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small group. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2005). Designing neighbourhoods for social interaction: The case of cohousing. Journal of Urban Design, 10(2), 195–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2008). Predicting an American future for cohousing. Futures, 40, 268–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Laura Ruiu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ruiu, M.L. The effects of cohousing on the social housing system: the case of the Threshold Centre. J Hous and the Built Environ 30, 631–644 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9436-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9436-7

Keywords

Navigation