What are the social and environmental benefits of sharing your living space?

Nowadays housing has become the bane of existence  for citizens of various backgrounds, economic status, and age. The growing number of urban populations are putting a strain on the architectural, environmental and social organization of modern cities. Local governments are facing a complex task of improving, expanding, or restructuring the housing system. Some turn to the quick, cheap, and less sustainable rapid construction of new housing, while others are unable to implement such a strategy due to the nature of historical planning of aging cities. Europe is one of the areas representing the latter circumstance: the cities are packed and located in close proximity to one another, which creates a serious threat of scarce capacity for new residents. However, a new and unique solution has been gaining popularity in a number of European countries; co-housing. 

Co-housing is “housing that features spaces and facilities for joint use by all residents who also maintain their own individual household” (Mahieu and Van Caudenberg, 2020, p. 3). It is also shown that such “renewed housing typology raises many expectations for creating vivid social networks and healthy environments” (Tummers, 2015, p. 64). Notably, the initiative originally had a grassroot character, however, now serving as a solution to the housing crisis, it started to be adopted as an official policy by various governmental institutions (Tummers, 2015). Let us take a closer look at the concept of co-housing in Europe, discovering how it can serve as an effective to the housing crisis while alleviating environmental impacts along the way. 

European co-housing initiatives

Current co-housing initiatives exist in this complex borderline territory. On one hand, at its core co-housing is constituted by the informal networks: people live together, exchanging services and products related to the shared space of living. On the other, governments are attempting to create co-housing projects with its top-down perspective, institutionalizing the initially informal connections. Lets focus on the following three examples of co-housing: the case of co-housing in Berlin, Germany; the case of migrants’ adaptation co-housing program in Antwerp, Belgium; and the case of co-housing in Bergen, Norway. Using such examples we can highlight the most notable benefits of co-housing.

To begin, the case of the Antwerp co-housing initiative is an example of institutionally organized co-housing, serving the purpose of migrant adaptation. The program assumes that “this mixed, intercultural communal living will promote regular, informal and meaningful social encounters between refugees and locals, which in turn will strengthen the independence and social inclusion of the young refugees” (Mahieu and Van Caudenberg, 2020, p. 1). Such a localized approach to the solution of migration related issues, such as accommodation, education and other types of support was adopted by various European states during the 2015 Syrian ‘refugee crisis’ (Mahieu and Van Caudenberg, 2020). The Antwerp co-housing program connects young locals with young refugees, providing both sides with accessible housing and facilitating cultural and emotional exchange, which in turn is supposed to improve migrants’ integration. In other words, the program unites the concept of ‘organized befriending’ with ‘communal living’. (Mahieu and Van Caudenberg, 2020). This co-housing initiative is not only helping to provide accommodation for the young people at a reasonable price, reducing the strain of the growing population on cities’ infrastructure, but also helps to tackle an urgent issue of migrant integration. Such exchange creates a sustainable and inclusive mode of living, which can later expand and inspire other citizens. 

Secondly, the case of German co-housing appears to be much less regulated by the state. To begin, the German experience stresses the supposed intentionality and inclusivity of collective housing, it also presupposes collective planning and managing in the established communities, as well as a degree of collaborative ownership (Droste, 2015). Over a thousand German co-housing projects have mainly emerged due to the state's decreased participation in private housing, which had intensified the housing crisis in general. It is thought that co-housing, as a politically charged response to such a crisis, became an indicator of resilience of city living, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of demographic change (Droste, 2015). 

Let us move to a narrower example of Berlin co-housing. Initially, such housing trends started as an attempt to legalize squats in 1980-1990. At that time the request for alternative forms of governance was especially urgent, since the city was experiencing drastic cultural, political, and economic transformations. Various non-governmental organizations take an initiative in restoring old unoccupied buildings, or even attracting investors to perform new constructions. In example, CoHousing Berlin has several such projects, both finished, planned and in progress. One of them is Baugemeinschaft Hof GutLeben-GbR, located in Töplitz. The project proposes to restore an old abandoned building, creating both 20 individual apartments and common areas, aiming at fostering multi-generational living with around 11 children, 12 people under 60, and 12 over 60 (Baugemeinschaft Hof GutLeben GbR | CoHousing|Berlin, no date). The co-housing projects do not go hand in hand with a typical housing market rule, instead it rests upon actors’ ideals and less rational motivations to create an inclusive and less environmentally harmful space. 

Finally, let us turn to the case of Bergen, Norway. Co-housing units in Bergen are usually smaller than traditional private apartments, however, the common areas are usually rich in their proposed activities, such as swimming pool, roof garden, gym etc. (Kvietkute and Lappegard Hauge, 2022). Norwegian policymakers have turned to co-housing since it combines a lot of desired characteristics for modern urban living, such as economic, environmental, and social sustainability (Kvietkute and Lappegard Hauge, 2022). Such sustainability is achieved through less time and energy consuming activities, since it rests upon simple actions of car-sharing, sharing common facilities, and shared ownership of household objects. Concerning specific social ties between the cohabitants, the Norwegian case demonstrates a stronger support and networks between co-housing communities compared to traditional residential areas, since co-housing is much more effective in facilitating a lucrative environment for citizens’ communication (Kvietkute and Lappegard Hauge, 2022). It is both due to physical proximity of living spaces, as well as the necessity of communication among people, required to build an inclusive and safe living community. 

After reviewing just three out of thousands co-housing initiatives, this is how such a trend promotes sustainability:

• The most obvious and influential benefit is found in a more conscious and prolonged use of houses. The construction of new housing is a costly activity, requiring enormous amounts of natural and human resources, often destroying forests and other natural environments in the pursuit of expanding the urban space. Co-housing projects frequently use abandoned buildings, or just overall use the available housing space wisely and holistically. 

• Co-housing residents can have a shared ownership over some household objects, which decreases overconsumption. Various kitchen utensils, gardening tools, furniture and even food can be shared and utilized to its full potential. 

• Commuting is also easier and sustainable with co-housing! Residents can lend vehicles and offer rides to each other, which can help to reduce the carbon emissions per household. 

• In general, the strongest and most sustainable feature of co-housing is found in its informal beginnings. Co-housing promotes a more fulfilling and conscious co-existence of people, which can increase safety and accountability of neighbors. The grassroot nature fosters collaboration and mutual help, which lays a great ground for the future expansion and multiplication of projects. 

The housing crisis in the world reflects various political, social, and economic processes, which makes it particularly hard to navigate and mitigate. The growing population has put a serious strain on the existing housing capacity in cities, as well as increased urban negative impact on  the environment. Co-housing offers a sustainable and collaborative solution to the urgent and scaling problem. 

by Vladislava Kuz

References

Baugemeinschaft Hof GutLeben GbR | CoHousing|Berlin (no date). Available at: https://www.cohousing-berlin.de/en/node/4603 (Accessed: 13 July 2023).

Droste, C. (2015) ‘German co-housing: an opportunity for municipalities to foster socially inclusive urban development?’, Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), pp. 79–92. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1011428.

Ennis, G. and West, D. (2013) ‘Using social network analysis in community development practice and research: a case study’, Community Development Journal, 48(1), pp. 40–57. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bss013.

Kvietkute, D. and Lappegard Hauge, Å. (2022) ‘Living with strangers: exploring motivations and stated preferences for considering co-housing and shared living in Bergen, Norway’, Housing and Society, 49(2), pp. 128–149. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2021.1972264.

Mahieu, R. and Van Caudenberg, R. (2020) ‘Young refugees and locals living under the same roof: intercultural communal living as a catalyst for refugees’ integration in European urban communities?’, Comparative Migration Studies, 8(1), p. 12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-019-0168-9.

Tummers, L. (2015) ‘Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: why and how?’, Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), pp. 64–78. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1011427.