“It’s a Great Idea for Other People”: Cohousing as a Housing Option for Older Australians

References

• Abraham, N. and de La, G.K., 2006. Elder cohousing—an idea whose time has come? Communities: journal of cooperative living, 131, 60–68.
   Google Scholar
• Bamford, G. and Lennon, L., 2008. Cohousing and rethinking the neighbourhood: the Australian context. Environment Design Guide, 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26149006.
   Google Scholar
• Borgloh, S., and Westerheide, P., 2012. The impact of mutual support based housing projects on the costs of care. Housing studies, 27, 620-642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenton, M., 2008. The Cohousing Approach to ‘Lifetime Neighbourhoods’ [online]. Available from: http://www.housingcare.org/downloads/kbase/3140.pdf [Accessed 23 Feb 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Brenton, M., 2013. Senior cohousing communities—an alternative approach for the UK? [online]. A Better Life. Available from: https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/senior-cohousing-communities-full.pdf [Accessed 23 February 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Chester, K., 2015. Older Australians and the bucket list: speaking notes [online]. Melbourne, Productivity Commission. Available from: https://www.pc.gov.au/news-media/speeches/bucket-list. [Accessed 23 February 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Chiodelli, F. and Baglione, V., 2013. Living together privately: for a cautious reading of cohousing. Urban research & practice, 7 (1), 20–34.
   Google Scholar
• Crabtree, L., 2016. Self-organised housing in Australia: housing diversity in an age of market heat. International journal of housing policy, 6718 (June), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, M., 2017. Quantifying the environmental impact of ecovillages and cohousing communities: A systematic literature review. Local Environment: The international journal of justice and sustainability, 22, 1358–1377.
   Google Scholar
• Darab, S. and Hartman, Y., 2013. Understanding single older women’s invisibility in housing issues in Australia. Housing, theory and society, 30 (4), 348–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day, T., 2011. Suburban adaptation: An investigation into the potential of adapting existing dwellings to improve affordability, increase occupancy rates and address the needs of the new demographic [online]. Available from: https://www.architects.nsw.gov.au/download/111212_Suburban_Adaptation_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 23 Feb 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Durrett, C., 2009. The senior cohousing handbook. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Glass, A.P., 2009. Aging in a community of mutual support: the emergence of an elder intentional cohousing community in the United States. Journal of housing for the elderly, 23 (4), 283–303.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, R., et al., 2013. The experience of marginal rental housing in Australia [online]. AHURI Final Report. Available from: https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/2196/AHURI_Final_Report_No210_The-experience-of-marginal-rental-housing-in-Australia.pdf [Accessed 23 Feb 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Humpel, N., et al., 2010. The health of Australian baby boomers. Australasian journal on ageing, 29 (1), 8–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvis, H., 2015. Towards a deeper understanding of the social architecture of co-housing: evidence from the UK, USA and Australia. Urban research & practice, 8 (1), 93–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd, M.G., Peel, D., and Janssen-Jansen, L.B., 2015. Self-build in the UK and Netherlands: mainstreaming self-development to address housing shortages? Urban, planning and transport research, 3 (1), 19–31.
   Google Scholar
• McGee, C., Wynne, L., and Lehmann, S., 2017. Housing innovation for compact, resilient cities. In: S. Lehmann and P. Bay, eds. Growing compact: urban form, density and sustainability, 287–300. New York and London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McGee, C. and Benn, S., 20 Apr 2015. How co-housing could make homes cheaper and greener. The Conversation [online], 20 April 2015. Available from: https://theconversation.com/how-co-housing-could-make-homes-cheaper-and-greener-39235 [Accessed 17 October 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Meltzer, G., 2010. Ecovillages and cohousing: A personal take on their similarities and differences. In: D.U. Vestbro, ed. Living together–cohousing ideas and realities around the world. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology, 105–113.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, A., 2009a. Contentment and suffering: the impact of Australia’s housing policy and tenure on older Australians. Australian journal of social issues, 44 (4), 363–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, A., 2009b. Living on the margins: comparing older private renters and older public housing tenants in Sydney, Australia. Housing studies, 24 (5), 693–707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murundaka Cohousing, 2016. Murundaka Cohousing Community [online]. Available from: https://www.murundakacohousing.org.au/ [Accessed 23 Feb 2018.
   Google Scholar
• NSW Government, 2016. NSW Intergenerational Report 2016: Future state NSW 2056 [online]. Available from: https://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2017-01/Budget_Paper_5_-_Intergenerational_Report_2016_-_full_report.pdf [Accessed 23 Feb 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, M., et al., 2014. Preventing first time homelessness amongst older Australians. AHURI Final Report. The University of Queensland: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Productivity Commission, 2008. Trends in Aged care services: some implications. Commission Research Paper. Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Productivity Commission, 2015. Housing decisions of older Australians. Canberra: Commission Research Paper.
   Google Scholar
• Quine, S. and Carter, S., 2006. Australian baby boomers’ expectations and plans for their old age. Australasian journal on ageing, 25 (1), 3–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiu, M.L., 2014. Differences between cohousing and gated communities. A literature review. Sociological inquiry, 84 (2), 316–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanguinetti, A., 2015. Diversifying cohousing: the retrofit model. Journal of architectural and planning research, 32 (1), 68–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharam, A., Bryant, L.E., and Alves, T., 2015a. Making apartments affordable: Moving from speculative to deliberative development [online]. Available from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/90144/1/2015_making_apartments_affordable-finalfinal.pdf. [Accessed 14 November 2016].
   Google Scholar
• Sharam, A., Bryant, L.E., and Alves, T., 2015b. De-risking development of medium density housing to improve housing affordability and boost supply. Australian planner, 52 (3), 210–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharam, A., Bryant, L.E., and Alves, T., 2015c. Identifying the financial barriers to deliberative, affordable apartment development in Australia. International journal of housing markets and analysis, 8 (4), 471–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Sheffield Cohousing Network, 2018. The Sheffield Cohousing Network: About [online]. Available from: https://sheffieldcohonetwork.wordpress.com/about/ [Accessed 13 Aug 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Tummers, L., 2015. Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: why and how? Urban research & practice, 8 (1), 64–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vestbro, D.U., 2000. From collective housing to cohousing—a summary of research. Journal of architectural and planning research, 17 (2), 164–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, J., 2005. Designing neighbourhoods for social interaction: the case of cohousing. Journal of urban design, 10 (2), 195–227.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, G., et al., 2008. The implications of loss of a partner for older private renters [online]. Melbourne, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited. Available from: https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/116 [Accessed 25 January 2018].
   Google Scholar