1 / 10

The effects of Cohousing on the Social Housing system: the case of the Threshold Centre

Housing Studies Association Conference The value of housing 15 th -17 th April 2014 • University of York. The effects of Cohousing on the Social Housing system: the case of the Threshold Centre. Maria Laura Ruiu University of Sassari, Department of Political Science,

lloyd
Download Presentation

The effects of Cohousing on the Social Housing system: the case of the Threshold Centre

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Housing Studies Association Conference The value of housing 15th -17th April 2014 • University of York The effects of Cohousing on the Social Housing system: the case of the Threshold Centre Maria Laura Ruiu University of Sassari, Department of Political Science, Science of communication and Information Engineering mlruiu@uniss.it

  2. Overview What cohousing communities are Goals Methodology Main Results

  3. What are Cohousing Communities? The Cohousing idea originated in the 60s in Denmark, and mainly spread in Sweden, Holland, Denmark, North America, and to a lesser extent, Norway, Germany, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan. Cohousing Communities consist of private homes around a common network of services (shared kitchen, dining rooms, childcare facilities, libraries, laundries, gymnasiums, cafeterias, offices, gardens, guest rooms etc.).

  4. Development Process • Forming; • storming; • norming; • performing;

  5. Goals • nature of the projects (“social cohousing project”); • mechanisms and motivations behind the communitydevelopment from the very beginning; • internal composition of the group in terms of "homogeneity" (or "heterogeneity") in relation to their economic, cultural and social capitals; • degree of closure (or opening) toward the outside and effects in the local community;

  6. Internal composition referring to: economic, cultural, social capitals of residents; required tasks for each member within the community; residents' personal experiences; group cohesion, sense of belonging and development of a group '"identity"; common interests and goals; internal organization, decision-making process. The observation aimed to study and describe the daily social relations among cohousers, residents’ habits, the space and its use (collection of visual data: photos and videos). The semi-structured interviews referred to a list of topics: questions were added according to the themes recalled each time by respondents. "Cognitive maps" were useful to understand where social interaction is concentrated and which areas represent opportunities for socializing within communities. three techniques of analysis connected to the "qualitative" methodology (observation, semi-structured interviews and cognitive maps; units of analysis: individual, group, community, internal organization and relations with the wider context where the communities arose. methodology

  7. ThresholdCentre, Dorset, 2008 Gillingham, Dorset (2002 – 2008)

  8. Cohousing communities have in common the intention to create the "village atmosphere" where the neighbourhood is able to create formal and informal mutual-support networks; Their need of a "friendly neighbourhood" can be explained in relation to the impossibility to find the same relationships within a "normal" neighbourhood; Cohousers identified only one difference between the Cohousing and village lifestyle: this is the intention to relate more each other; • RuralContext (1,5 acres); • “co-social-housing” (50% managedby a housingAssociation); • 14 semi detachedhouses (owners, co-owners, renters); • 18 adults (6 men and 12 women); • Mainlysingles (only 2 couples) over 40 yearsold; • common way of life and sharingof common purposes; • development of a sense of belonging; • Economicbenefits • Environmental care • Self-managementof common spaces and facilities; • group size to support the community dynamics; • freedom in deciding to leave the community; • "electiveneighbourhood"; Intentionality; participation of inhabitants in designing the communities' physical layout ; presence of private and common facilities (and common activities); Cohousing Features 5 3 1

  9. Conclusions Needtodeepen the studyabout Cohousing as a social housingform; partnershipsmight produce some benefitsifthey are managed in a bottom up way (some difficulties in applying the cohousing schemebyfollowing a top down logic); needto involve residents in development and decisionmakingprocesses (intentionality); ThresholdCentrehasbeenableto reduce the approval and constructiontimescalethanksto the partnership with a HousingAssociation; Physical layout and internalcomposition; Cohousersprovide those facilities that would normally be government responsibilities because services are directly managed by members; Partnerships can “force” cohousers to make their facilities available in the wider context; Partnerships can “force” cohousers to build “eco-friendly” communities.

  10. Thanks…

More Related