Beyond Affordability: English Cohousing Communities as White Middle-Class Spaces

Arbell, Yael

doi:10.1080/14036096.2021.1998217

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cohousing's vision regarding its relation to capital varies within the sector: some communities make an effort to be affordable and prevent real estate speculation (Chatterton, 2015), while other communities are part of the open market. These have significant implications for membership, which is often alternative and middle-class (Arbell, 2021b). Housing Cooperatives' vision emphasises secure, decent and affordable housing through tenants control, if not ownership (indeed, most of them are not mutually owned, see: Rowlands 2012).…”

Section: Clh: Commoning Communities In a Changing Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subjectivities are more than simply identities or social attributes (Ostrom, 2007;Nightingale 2011); studies in the US showed that social position in itself cannot predict communal living, and in fact there is a gap between those interested in cohousing communities and those moving into them (Boyer and Leland, 2018). Arguably, the deciding factor was their subjectivity (Arbell, 2021b).…”

Section: Subjectivities: Becoming a Commonermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Members' identities are likely to affect their subjectivities and consequently their commoning style. An example of this is the social profile of cohousing communities in the UK, where membership is predominantly White, well-educated, progressive middleclass (Arbell, 2021b). Members' identities shaped the sector's vision and practice according to their habitus, needs and values.…”

Section: Subjectivities: Becoming a Commonermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Circle of Commoning: Conceptualising Commoning through the Case of Community-Led Housing

Arbell

2023

International Journal of the Commons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are endless styles of commoning, and not a single perfect way to manage the commons. Each commons is unique, with its own context, aims, membership and culture. How can we explain the diversity of commoning practices? This paper proposes a conceptual framework for the process of commoning: the Circle of Commoning. This framework identifies two interrelated dynamics in the practice of commoning: internal and external. It identifies three key elements of commoning: subjectivities, visions and social relations. These elements are interconnected, specific to a time and place and always relate to broader political and cultural contexts. Using the case of UK communityled housing as an illustration, the framework explains how the interplay between the internal and external factors determines the nature of the commons. This framework is applicable to all types of commons and other types of social organisations, and bridges the existing gap in the literature between studies focusing on small scale practices and those concerned with macro socio-economic contexts.

show abstract

Section: Clh: Commoning Communities In a Changing Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Subjectivities: Becoming a Commonermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Subjectivities: Becoming a Commonermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Circle of Commoning: Conceptualising Commoning through the Case of Community-Led Housing

Arbell

2023

International Journal of the Commons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This collaboration process is called co-design. On the one hand, some CH forms are often linked to welleducated middle-high classes [8,9]. Its tailor-or custom-made design approach [10,11], the additional construction of common spaces [12], and the time and resources required in self-organisation [12], are some (design) factors influencing this view.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing Is Saving? Building Costs Simulation of Collaborative and Mainstream Housing Designs

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building costs play a significant role in determining the affordability of a housing project, and these depend to a large extent on design choices. This paper is based on the premise that collaborative design processes, or co-design, used in collaborative housing (CH) in Europe reduce building costs and consequently increase the affordability of these housing projects. However, research remains scarce on the extent to which CH is an affordable solution from a design perspective compared to affordable mainstream housing (MH), in which no co-design is used. Therefore, this paper aims to fill this knowledge gap by assessing the impact of design choices on building costs in CH and MH. To this end, we developed a simulation model to compare the building costs of CH with MH based on their design choices. Findings indicate that CH represents a more affordable and space-efficient solution when compared to MH, if we look at the building costs per unit. This is because CH provides less expensive units while it includes larger common spaces and extra quality. These results help to refute existing claims about the unaffordability of CH design solutions.

show abstract

“…Durrett and McCamant first developed the term cohousing in the United States. Afterward, cohousing increased in popularity around the world, and many projects have been established in countries such as Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, the United States, Spain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom, and Asia (Bamford, 2008;Sanguinetti, 2013;Arbell, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cohousing design guidelines for better social integration in the United Arab Emirates

Yahia,

Mushtaha,

Yassin

et al. 2023

Front. Built Environ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considering cohousing as a new typology in the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) housing market is a challenge due to the cultural and societal dimensions. However, the variety of societies in the Emirates reflecting various habits, experiences, and traditions can allow testing such new types of housing which can be adapted to the local context, considering the needs of the society. This study aims at developing design guidelines for future cohousing in the UAE, considering the pillars of the Estidama program, i.e., social, cultural, economic, and environmental aspects, in addition to the role of architecture design. The present study is based on an empirical investigation from the viewpoint of future cohousing residents in the UAE. Semi-structured interviews considering 87 individuals were conducted. Moreover, a focus group discussion targeting eight professionals was performed. Furthermore, the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) method was applied to include the people’s voices directly when developing the design guidelines for cohousing in the UAE. The study showed that the aspects of culture and privacy are crucial in the future of cohousing in the UAE. In addition, providing local facilities such as majlis and praying rooms is vital to consider. Moreover, other aspects such as sustainable design, universal design, and safety are also valuable. For the outdoor environment, the study highlighted the importance of urban design quality, landscape solutions, shading, and natural ventilation strategies in outdoor spaces. Future cohousing in the UAE is expected to enhance social interaction and contribute to sustainability in the long-term perspective.

show abstract

Beyond Affordability: English Cohousing Communities as White Middle-Class Spaces

Cited by 8 publications

References 47 publications

The Circle of Commoning: Conceptualising Commoning through the Case of Community-Led Housing

The Circle of Commoning: Conceptualising Commoning through the Case of Community-Led Housing

Sharing Is Saving? Building Costs Simulation of Collaborative and Mainstream Housing Designs

Cohousing design guidelines for better social integration in the United Arab Emirates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About