Living together privately: for a cautious reading of cohousing

Abstract

The paper analyses cohousing as a part of the phenomenon of private residential communities. First, we provide an overview of cohousing and we identify its five constitutive characteristics. Second, we propose a comparison between the constitutive features of cohousing and of other kinds of private residential communities. Third, we argue that the interpretation of cohousing within the context of private residential communities raises some doubts about a completely positive interpretation of the phenomenon and about policies for promoting it.

Keywords:

• cohousing
• private residential communities
• housing policies

Notes

1. About cohousing diffusion, see Meltzer (2000, 2005) and Williams (2005a).

2. Our arguments are based both on an extensive literature review and on a 4-year-long fieldwork research on cohousing and other types of private residential community (gated communities, religious communities, eco-villages).

3. Ellickson (2006) argues that a reason for this fact is related to high transaction costs of cohousing.

4. Source: http://www.cohousing.org/directory (accessed July 15, 2013).

5. In the United Kingdom, according to the UK Cohousing Network, there are almost 15 completed cohousing communities and about 30 communities under plan (http://www.cohousing.org.uk, accessed July 15, 2013). In Belgium there are about 15 cohousing communities (http://www.samenhuizen.be, accessed July 15, 2013).

6. See, for instance, Vestbro and Horelli (2012, 315): according to them, cohousing is simply ‘housing with common space and shared facilities’. A well-known list of the constitutive characteristics of cohousing is provided by McCamant, Durrett, and Hertzman (2011, 38–43): (i) participatory process, (ii) intentional neighbourhood design, (iii) extensive common facilities, and (iv) complete residents’ management. Nevertheless, in our opinion, this list too is not sufficiently comprehensive.

7. From a physical point of view, many cohousing projects have some similarities. For instance, cohousing communities are quite small (they are made up of few housing units, typically ranging from 10 to 50 (Fromm 2000; Rogers 2005)); they are mainly located in urban and suburban areas (see Meltzer 2000; Margolis and Entin 2011); housing units are of more limited dimensions than the average (Fromm 2006). However, in our opinion, these physical characteristics are not necessary to define a community such as cohousing.

8. In particular cases some of these spaces and facilities are open to people who are external to the community (Stewart 2002).

9. In some cases there are further amenities: a garage for DIY, sports equipment, greenhouse, vegetable garden, kindergarten etc.

10. Cohousing communities do not have a typical legal structure (Fenster 1999; Scotthanson and Scotthanson 2005). However, cohousing communities usually organize themselves into some form of association (for instance, a homeowners’ association) to which all the residents belong. It is this association that legally establishes the community’s constitutional and operational rules.

11. According to different cases, these are called the ‘Master Deed’ or ‘Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions’.

12. About the difference between statutes and bylaw, see for instance Fenster (1999, 8): ‘While the bylaws need to be both accessible and stable as rules and provisions that are central to the operation of the group (generally requiring a supermajority or a consensus decision to be changed), they are also more easily amended than the declaration, which plays an important role in the resale of the property and in securing financing’.

13. The community constitution phase is the phase during which the core group of residents is formed and the settlement is planned and built. It can last for many years: ‘The most active members are likely to attend one to four meetings a week for one, or sometimes, several years. The process can be long and frustrating, but those now living in cohousing communities universally agree that it was well worth the effort’ (McCamant, Durrett, and Hertzman 2011, 40).

14. If necessary, they can have recourse to expert consultation for support in particular operations (e.g. the architectural project).

15. Only in a very small number of cases is there any type of cohousers’ participation. Processes are autonomously started and directed by a private or public developer according to a top-down procedure; the participation of residents is limited to the management stage. For a more detailed typology of development models, see Williams (2005b).

16. Usually, at these meetings, every decision is taken by consensus; only in particular cases, when it is not possible to reach consensus, decisions are taken by majority or super-majority voting (see Margolis and Entin 2011, 10).

17. According to Fromm’s (2000) survey of the US communities of Winslow, Pioneer Valley and Puget Ridge, 90% of residents are members of some working group or committee (50% of more than one and 20% of three or even more). The whole community meets at least a dozen times per year.

18. Actually, the spatial organization of the settlement is usually planned to promote the interaction between the residents (Torres-Antonini 2001; Williams 2005a; McCamant, Durrett, and Hertzman 2011).

19. Homeowners’ associations account for 52–55%, condominiums 38–42% and cooperatives 5–7%. Data source: Community Association Institute (http://www.caionline.org/info/research/Pages/default.aspx accessed May 12, 2012).

20. A retirement community is a particular form of private residential community devised for elderly people. See Lucas (2004); McHugh and Larson-Keagy (2005); McHugh (2007); McHugh, Gober, and Borough (2002).

21. See the case of the Ave Maria community in Florida, which was founded for the principal purpose of establishing an all-Catholic residential community (Reilly 2005; Bollinger 2009).

22. Sports and leisure communities are private residential communities characterized by specific communal services related to sport and leisure (e.g. swimming pools, golf greens, tennis clubs, etc.).

23. New Towns are suburban, large residential developments, also including services, commercial/industrial and retail activities, which work as independent towns. They can have many thousands of residents: for example, Reston, in Virginia, has 56,000 inhabitants (Boudreaux and Holcombe 2009).

24. ‘They are small compounds of privacy for celebrities and the gated summer communities for the very rich... [They are] highly exclusive, often hidden and heavily defended’ (Blakely and Snyder 1998, 61).

25. About the diffusion of gated communities in many countries all around the world, see for instance: Blandy (2006) on England; Stoyanov and Frantz (2006) on Bulgaria; Glasze and Alkhayyal (2002) on the Arab world; Coy and Pöhler (2002); Salcedo and Torres (2004) and Alvarez-Rivadulla (2007) on Latin America.

26. According to Nelson (2005), this is approximately 10% of US residential community associations, that is 20% of the total population of residential community associations (see also Ben-Joseph 2004).

27. It is worth noting that not only is the typological variety of private residential communities high, but their social and ethnic variety is too: they are not inhabited only by affluent and white residents; for instance, in the United States there exist many communities inhabited by ethnical minorities (e.g. Hispanic) or low-middle-income people (see Ben-Joseph 2004; Sanchez, Lang, and Dhavale 2005; Vesselinov, Cazessus, and Falk 2007).

28. About property regimes, see, for instance, Krueckeberg (1995).

29. For instance, cohousing are privately owned in the United States (Fenster 1999), Italy (Chiodelli 2010) and the United Kingdom (Scott-Hunt 2007); this is true also with reference to northern Europe, where private ownership is well diffused, for instance in the form of condominium ownership (Scotthanson and Scotthanson 2005; see also Ache and Fedrowitz (2012) with reference to Germany).

30. See also Scotthanson and Scotthanson (2005, 5): ‘In cohousing, people intend to live together, but the ownership structure allows for private ownership and private control of what is privately owned’.

31. It is interesting to note that there are ‘no significant differences between gated and ungated communities in the provision of recreational amenities’ (McCabe and Tao 2006, 1148).

32. On the thorny issue of the limits of the private residential associations’ right to exclude, see Moroni and Chiodelli (Forthcoming). On this issue, it is interesting to consider the US Supreme Court sentences (see, for instance, Kennedy 1995; Epstein 1997; Siegel 1998; Rahe 2002; Chadderdon 2006; Franzese 2008; Bollinger 2009).

33. Some retirement communities apply an age threshold for admission of both members and temporary guests.

34. ‘Reasons for initially joining a cohousing group were community aspects (45%), a good place to raise children (28%), with other reasons being friendship, support, simplifying their lifestyle, sharing resources, availability of meals, and the location’ (Fromm 2000, 101).

35. Cohousing communities usually promote themselves as not ideological. However, cohousing is probably the type of private residential community in which shared values have a more significant role (for instance in the formation of the community, in the choice of residents, in the organization of daily life).

36. See, for example, Fromm (1991); McCamant, Durrett, and Hertzman 2011; Meltzer (2005). A more critical view is provided almost only by Williams (2005a, 2005b, 2008).

37. On this topic, see also Meltzer (2000) and Rogers (2005). Actually communitarianism tends to enforce homogeneity (Young 1991).

38. For a different opinion, see Fromm (2012).

39. See, for instance, Atkinson and Flint (2004); Bauman (2000); Blakely and Snyder (1997); Caldeira (1999); Cashin (2001); Low (2003); Vesselinov, Cazessus, and Falk (2007).

40. It is worth highlighting that we do not deal with whether the reported criticisms about private residential communities are convincing or, as some authors argue, are exaggerated or not true at all (Ellickson 1982; Webster 2001, 2002; Salcedo and Torres 2004; Webster and Le Goix 2005; Brunetta and Moroni 2012). We just argue for the necessity of an analogous interpretation of a different kind of private residential communities, whatever this interpretation is.

41. ‘Twenty-six municipalities [in Germany] were found to be supporting co-housing projects. The support ranges from simple offers, like a website with information about local housing companies or other interested persons, to more comprehensive approaches with the provision of special funding or building plots’ (Ache and Fedrowitz 2012, 405). See for instance the case of Hamburg, where ‘since 2003 the city has run a special support agency for co-housing projects. [...] The agency supports groups from the inception of the idea to the final stage of moving to the new project. [...] To tackle the lack of building plots, the city reserves 20% of the publicly controlled land zoned for housing for co-building projects’ (ibid, 407). In Italy, see for instance ‘Dalla rete al cohousing’ [From network to cohousing], a project for the realization of a cohousing community devoted to people under 35 years old; the project has been co-promoted and co-financed, among the others, by the Municipality of Bologna and by the Italian Ministry of Youth Affairs (http://www.comune.bologna.it/retecohousing).

42. Some authors have argued that private residential communities have direct negative effects on surrounding neighbourhoods (for instance, in terms of crime, Helsley and Strange 1999); however, these statements have been rebutted (see, for instance, Blakely and Snyder 1998; Salcedo and Torres 2004).

43. It is worth mentioning that some authors maintain that a share of units within a cohousing community should be publicly financed and owned (see, for instance, Lietaert 2010); the rationale is that, in so doing, low-income people could have access to cohousing, and that social mixing of the community could be enhanced. However, it seems to be problematic to have public housing within a cohousing community: as we have said, cohousing is not for all – residents must have a flair for communitarian life; moreover, the creation of a strong and well-functioning community requires an accurate selection of inhabitants. All these needs could collide with the selection of residents for public housing according to objective criteria such as income and social vulnerability.