Schulich | co housing model, 16 case studies by charlinechauuk

SELF BUILD COHOUSING

A GUIDE TO COMMON SUCCESS FACTORS ACROSS 16 CASE STUDIES

Independent Research Paper, Property 6900 Student name: Tran Chau Student number: 215 282 940

Email: tchau17@schulich.yorku.ca

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 3 I.

CASE STUDY SELECTION .......................................................................................................... 4 1. 2. 3.

II.

PROBLEM ............................................................................................................................................... 4 PROJECT SELECTION ........................................................................................................................ 6 RESOURCES........................................................................................................................................... 6

CASE STUDY DETAIL FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 7

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

COMMON DESIGN FEATURES ......................................................................................................... 9 COMMON PROGRAMMING IN CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION .................................. 13 COMMON OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE .......................................................................................... 15 COMMON FINANCIAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 18 COMMON STAKEHOLDERS SUPPORT ........................................................................................ 23

III.

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 24

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................ 32 CASE STUDY IN EUROPE ................................................................................................................ 32 APPENDIX 1 | NETHERLANDS ................................................................................................................... 32 VRIJBURCHT, AMSTERDAM ............................................................................................................. 32 APPENDIX 2 | GERMANY ............................................................................................................................ 34 SPREEFELD GENOSSENSCHAFT, BERLIN .................................................................................. 34 ALTE WEBEREI, TUBINGEN ............................................................................................................. 36 APPENDIX 3 | AUSTRIA ............................................................................................................................... 38 ASPERN SEESTADT, VIENNA, AUSTRIA .................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX 4 | SWITZERLAND ................................................................................................................... 41 KALKBREITE, ZURICH, SWITZERLAND ..................................................................................... 41 APPENDIX 5 | DENMARK ............................................................................................................................ 43 TRUDESLUND, COPENHAGEN, DENMARK .............................................................................. 43 APPENDIX 6 | FINLAND ............................................................................................................................... 44 CASA MALTA, HELSINKI, FINLAND ............................................................................................. 44 APPENDIX 7 | SPAIN ..................................................................................................................................... 46 LA BORDA, BARCELONA, SPAIN ................................................................................................... 46 APPENDIX 08 | UK ......................................................................................................................................... 47 ST CLEMENTS, LONDON .................................................................................................................... 47 LILAC, LEEDS............................................................................................................................................ 48

CASE STUDY IN CANADA ............................................................................................................... 50 APPENDIX 9 | QUEBEC ................................................................................................................................ 50 COHABITAT, QUEBEC ......................................................................................................................... 50 APPENDIX 10 | BRITISH COLUMBIA ....................................................................................................... 52 VANCOUVER COHOUSING, VANCOUVER ................................................................................ 52 CRANBERRY COMMONS COHOUSING, BURNABY............................................................... 53

CASE STUDY IN THE USA | CO-HOUSING .................................................................................. 54 APPENDIX 11 | WASHINGTON VILLAGE ............................................................................................... 54

CASE STUDY IN THE USA | AFFORDABLE HOUSING ............................................................. 56 APPENDIX 12 | VIA VERDE, NEW YORK ................................................................................................ 56 APPENDIX 13| PASEO VERDE, PHILADELPHIA ................................................................................... 58

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Target Readers: This research aims to serve small development companies, non-profit organisations, community groups, or co-op housing organisations, those parties who want to build small scale co-housing development from 30 to 100 housing units. In practice, the co-housing units can be for sale or for lease. It can be considered as a sub-segment for the affordable housing program. Or, it can be held as rental units which will attract more end users. Research Structure: The research examines co-housing projects in Europe and North America, it focuses on land ownership, project’s features, sustainability practices, community programming, finance and stakeholder’s support. Through 16 case studies across the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Spain, the U.K., Canada and the US, the paper provides a standard guideline for developing a co-housing project at inception. The coverage is wide and allow us to address some fundamentals that stimulate project success. Methodology: The cases are selected based on a list of criteria. In essence, the projects must be established in the last 10 years, it must cater to multigenerational users, and is located in urban areas, adoption of innovation is also counted. Data is retrieved from co-housing networks in the suggested country, the project website, architecture sites, published academic articles, and industry news. Findings: Five common factors are identified in 16 successful projects. § Design: across the board, private spaces are optimized to maximize share spaces, shared spaces are equipped to facilitate community interactions. In addition, recreational spaces are created to provide the utmost comfort while commercial units such as office, retail, hotel, and service facilities are also included at the site. § Construction and Operation: to build and maintain the spaces, community works are utilized. Construction materials are sourced locally from local made materials and local suppliers while construction works are executed by local contractors, local volunteers and future residents. For operation, the residents are divided into multiple working groups to maintain the places together. § Legal Ownership: co-operative, strata condominium, or a hybrid of both, are found in many projects in Europe and Canada. Community Land Trust is more popular in the UK and the US. § Finance: complex equity and debt resources are sourced from the government, sponsorship grants, nonprofit organizations, private developer, private companies, social enterprise fund, and social bank. § Stakeholders: Government plays a central role in facilitating co-housing projects, especially in Europe. In addition, there are supports from consultants, banks and financial institutions, and non-profit organisations. It is recommended that new co-housing projects in Canada consider these factors to ensure a successful establishment at inception. Conclusion The case studies are provided to examine and explain successful factors in established co-housing projects. While it is still limited, the background research should draw lessons that might be applied in projects in Canada. The paper contend that more research should be focused on the available resources including government support, funding schemes, and the available land in Canada; these factors are critical in project success. Further consideration on the ownership structure to own, operate, and sale units in co-housing project should also be explored. Build technologies to reduce construction cost and increase sustainability practices is another important dimension. Lastly, structuring a strong cohesive governance during different stages of the project is vital as well.

CASE STUDY SELECTION

1. PROBLEM In Toronto, current housing solutions does not sufficiently capture urban diversity while the city is undergoing significant change in population and demographic. From 2011-2016, the annual population growth rate was approximately 4.6% per year, increased by 116,511 people within the period (Census 2016). In 2016, 73% of total population was dominated by three segments: citizens aged between 25-44 (32% of total population), citizens aged between 45-64 (28%), and citizens aged between 15-24 (13%). Obviously, housing types must cater to these segments and evolve to capture the shift in ages. In the next 10 years, these citizens will be from 25-74 years old including youngsters, families and seniors. Secondly, housing is not affordable. In the GTA, there will be 105,000 condo units released in the next five years, 59% of them is one bedroom; the average condo price cost is $511,000 while townhouse is $1,134,000 (Urbanation, 2017). CMHC also reported that 47% of renters must pay more than 30% of their gross income to shelter (City of Toronto, 2016). Millennials cannot afford home ownership, families do not have enough space, while there is a shortage of retirement home with four years waitlist (Globe and Mail, 2017). Overall, the city still lacks a housing solution to foster inclusive living for the mentioned demographic.

Source: Urbanation (2017), City of Toronto (2017) The second problem is urban sprawl developments, homes are built in areas without jobs, amenities, clinics, schools, and transit connections. These rural sites require government investments to become serviced lands, this translates to hundred million dollars projects only to supply water and waste treatment to un-serviced sites (Neptis, 2018). Furthermore, Torontonians living in the outer ring still have to commute to the city for jobs and amenities, while there are still rooms for growth in urban areas. Urban Toronto has a density of 4,457 inhabitants/km2, this is lower than Montreal at 4,916, Vancouver at 5,493, Amsterdam at 4,916, San Francisco at 7,171, New York at 10,935, and London at 11,054 (Fraser, 2018). There is still land for growth. Recent changes in the provincial growth plan encouraged intensification in urban areas to utilize existing infrastructure (Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 2017). Following this, Neptis also identified more than 100,000 ha of undeveloped land in the designated green field areas (Neptis 2017), it is unknown how much of these lands is available in the 416. Nevertheless, it suggests urban density can increase, especially areas with existing services and waste treatments, transit and amenities. Alongside, concepts of midrise buildings, stacked townhouse, standard townhouse, semi-detached, and detached home in laneway, gentrification and other alternative house types should also be considered in the core growth areas.

Source: Neptis Foundation (2017) Overall, to solve any housing problem in any city, developers need to create a housing complex that can foster demographic diversity in the city, urban locations are preferred. Therefore, the paper examines co-housing model as an alternative solution, specifically assessing case studies of projects located in urban areas and cater to multigenerational users (blue box in diagram 1).

Cohousing for multigeneration in rural areas

CO-HOUSING SEGMENTS

Cohousing for millenials in urban centres

Cohousing for seniors in urban centres

Eco-village for multigeneration in rural areas

EXAMINE Cohousing for multigeneration in urban centres

Cohousing for seniors in small town

Diagram 1. Co-Housing Segments in Europe, US and Canada. *Source: Preliminary market research

2. PROJECT SELECTION The research chose projects based on a list of criteria to answer one exploratory question: v What are the common successful factors of existing co-housing models in Europe, Canada and the US? And, the criteria list is below: a. Project Profile (The project must possess all these aspects) o o o o o

Leadership: Community lead from inception to construction and operation. Time: Projects are built since 2010, and are under operation. There are exceptions. If the projects were built before 2010, and are leading examples in their city, they are also included. Size: The project creates small scale communities from 25-60 housing units, denser innovative projects can also be explored. Location: Located at urban areas within 30 minutes commute to the city centre via public transit. Diversity: Purposely built for multi-generation owner occupier and or tenants.

b. Innovation (If the projects possess only one innovation below, it is still sufficient to explore) o o o o

Spaces: there must be a mixture of shared spaces and private spaces. Affordability: rental rate or sale price matches or standes below market average. Sustainability: clear applications in construction materials, design, and operation programming. Innovative financing: seek different sources of funding to fund the project.

3. RESOURCES North America: In the US, there are 165 co-housing projects published in the Directory of the Co-Housing Association of the United States. However, only seven projects satisfy the selection criteria. To broaden the research, housing projects with elements of affordable housing are also examined, data is retrieved from the case studies of the Urban Land Institute in North America. In Canada, the two major resources are the Canadian Co-housing network and the Canadian Senior Co-housing. Out of 30 listed projects from these two sites, there are only four projects completed and in operation which satisfy the research criteria. Related data is also retrieved from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Association. Europe: There is no centralized resource for co-housing projects in Europe. The Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC) is the most widely used directory for community developments worldwide, it is a reference here. However, the FIC database does not cover the actual data. Another website is The Co-Housing Culture site, it suggests co-housing projects in Europe, or contacts of organisations involved in this project type. Otherwise, there is no specific co-housing project database in each country, except Berlin city in Germany. Therefore, multiple journals and websites have been deployed to identify the most well-known projects in some of the most popular cities in Europe (Table 1).

Table 1. Projects examined in the case study and major research resources

Netherlands Austria Finland Denmark

City Berlin Tubingen Amsterdam Vienna Helsinki Copenhagen

Project List Spreefeld Genossenschaft Alte Weberei Vrijburcht Aspern Seestadt Casa Malta Trudeslund

Switzerland

Zurich

Kalkbreite

Spain

Barcelona

La Borda

London

St Clement

Leeds

Lilac

Vancouver Quebec

Cranberry Commons Vancouver Co-Housing Cohabitat

Washington

Washington Village

New York

Via Verde

Philadelphia

Paseo Verde

Country Germany

Canada

II.

Resources

Co-Housing Berlin Co-Housing Culture Fellowship for Intentional Community

Canadian Co-housing Network Canadian Senior Cohousing Canada Mortgage and Housing Association Co-Housing Association of the United States Urban Land Institute

CASE STUDY DETAIL FINDINGS

Framework 1 illustrates the common features found in successful, well-established co housing projects in Europe, US and Canada. • The aspect including design, construction, and operation can be applied for future co-housing projects in Canada. • The legal ownership structure, finance, and stakeholders support need to be investigated further to find a best fit framework for Canada. • Detail evidences from each province is critical as the real estate law, market performance, and financial resources are different across provinces.

Framework 1. Common Success Factors Found Across 16 case studies

§ § §

Have a wide range of housing typologies Have commercial components (office, retail, services, rental housing units) Have sustainability features (solar panels, rain water collection, landscaping, natural made construction materials, facilitate electrical vehicles, encourage walkability or cycling)

Local based: source local made materials, local suppliers, local contractors, local volunteers to build the site Community based: residents are divided into many working groups to maintain the place. The board of committees is elected. Decision is made based on consensus

Design

Construction Operation § §

Legal § Ownership & Resale Rights

§ § §

Co-operative structure: home owner purchases shares in corresponding to their unit size plus share price of the land and shared spaces. The owner can resale their shares. Resale price is either capped at the initial price, or allowing a minimum realization of capital gain. Strata condominium: home owner purchases the units with a separate title. They can resale their units at market price. Community land trust: home owner purchases or rents a long-term lease the units belong to the CLT’s property. Rent is capped at under market value. They can transfer their rights of use to their heirs, or resale the rights. Price is always capped under market value

Land: government sale or lease government owned land at discounted price Equity: gain from government, grants of non-profit organisations, private developers, future residents/tenants Debt: low interest loan from government and social banks, or social enterprise fund. In addition, conventional mortgage is utilized.

Finance

§ § §

Government support scheme Non-profit consultants or specialized consultants Social banks and non-profit organisations

Stakeholders

1. COMMON DESIGN FEATURES Implication Overall, all co-housing features in the EU can be applied in Canada, they are very similar with the current housing typologies built in urban areas in Canada. The framework below is a synthesized reference of the typical features. Among those, innovative features such as health and wellness, recreational facilities, and design for sustainable uses are also adopted widely. The addition of commercial components including office, retail, hotel, service facilities, and rental housing units are also optimized; specific tenants are desire, especially local businesses. Some shared spaces also open to the public. Further details are explained accordingly. RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE SPACE, OWED v v v v

Bedroom Bathroom Kitchen Balcony (if have)

Bedroom types: studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms, mansionette, cluster apartments Housing types: low rise apartment building, stacked townhouse, detached home

RESIDENTIAL SHARED SPACE/FACILITIES v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v

Kitchen Laundry Communal room Event room Guest room Library Courtyard Children’s playground Garden & Greenhouse Rooftop Spa and sauna room Workshop room Entertainment room (music/ cinema/ theatre) Recreational areas (boat dock, party room) Fitness studio (yoga, Pilates) Bike storage Rain water collection Solar panel Surface parking Electrical charging station (e-car/e-bike)

COMMERCIAL LEASE v v v v v v

Office Retail Mini hotel Medical center Daycare center Fitness studio

Design: Private spaces are optimized (reduce in size to suit the only basic needs) to maximize shared spaces. Shared facilities including, but not limited to, the following features: §

§ §

Common shared facilities: Multipurpose room for communal events, dining rooms, kitchen, workshop rooms, guest rooms, library, children playgrounds, garden, rooftop, parking spaces for cars and bikes, day care center, medical centers. In-house entertainment: Facilities including theatre, TV and game rooms, and greenhouse garden are applicable in Canada where adverse weather limits outdoor shared activities. In-house recreational activities: Recreational areas such as shared boat, docking space, sauna, yoga and exercise room make the complex become more attractive.

Shared boat at Spreefeld, Berlin

Shared pier at Vrijburcht, Amsterdam

Rooftop with barbecue equipments at Casa Malta, Helsinki

In-house theatre at Vrijburcht, Amsterdam

b. Added design values: ยง

Private spaces provide different housing typologies. Typical studios including one bed room apartment, two bedrooms apartment, units for assisted living (e.g: Vrijburcht complex); they are arranged in mid-rise buildings or stacked townhouses. To maximize space, sometimes, a clustered apartment comprising of 8 studios and a shared kitchen and one living room (e.g: Spreefeld complex, Kalkbreite complex) is also added. Some projects developed townhouse and detached home (e.g: Trudelund complex). These typologies serve a wide range of needs for the multi-generation users. Units are for sale and for rent.

ยง

Commercial components increase income. Commercial units (office, retail, hotel) and facilities (daycare centers, medical centers, coffee shops, studios classrooms, theatre) will earn income, which is reserved in community budget to maintain public spaces. Some modern trends are adopted across cases. Trend in co-working spaces is adopted at Aspern Seestadt complex. The complex also built a technology research center to attract tech companies. Within the complex, the newly built office building, HoHo Wien, allocate several levels dedicated only to well-being treatments. Another project, Kalkbreite (Zurich) attracted only local retailers in their retail units, aiming to increase the livelihood and economic condition of the neighbourhood.

Hotel at Kalkbreite, Zurich

Office at HoHo Wien, Vienna

In addition, part of the shared spaces such as garden, rooftop terrace, library, event room and so forth also open to the public, it encourages the integration of the co-housing complex into the neighborhood. Table 2. Development prototypes across examples projects. Details are in the Appendix.

Project

Vrijburcht, Amsterdam 151 people 52 homes

Spreefeld Genossenschaft, Berlin 140 people 65 units in three buildings

B.R.O.T, Aspern Seestadt, Vienna 180 people 40 units

Kalkbreite, Zurich 97 units

Component Land Total shared community spaces Shared garden Greenhouse & garden for sharing meals in winter Standard apartment Assisted living apartment Theatre space Bike storage Land Residential area for standard flat Six cluster apartment units Ten commercial units (workshop & offices) Communal spaces Communal terrace Option room for public uses cater to social or cultural projects Music room Land Building Apartments Home for homeless Shared facilities including large common room with kitchen, meditation room, spa, exercise room, two garages, two therapy rooms, music room. Green roof Communal spaces Land Residential Standard apartment Commercial areas

Cohabitat 42 units in five buildings

Apartment types

Size (square metres/units) 4,400 1,700 550 35 ~100 7 units 100 115 7,414 3,580 (54-290 sqm/flat) 1,905 (~317 sqm/cluster) 980 (44-273 sqm/unit) 350 420 384 350 1,690 800 27-150 sqm/unit 7 units 800

300 480 ~6,000 sqm GFA ~1,700 sqm GFA 97 apartments (28-215 sqm/unit) including 30 clustered units retail: 816, restaurants and foods: 489, health facilities: 611, offices: 1,617, cinema: 654, nursery: 312, guest house, bed and breakfast: 258 § 4 townhouses of 4 bedrooms § 6 townhouses of 3 bedrooms § 10 condos of 3 bedrooms § 16 condos of 2 bedrooms § 6 condos of 1 bedroom

Sustainable design:

All of the below features are already adopted in Canada. Given the increasing awareness in sustainability practices in real estate here, deploying these features in co-housing projects in Canada will enhance the property value. §

Passive house technique is common in Europe. Essentially, it can reduce up to 85% of heating energy through minimizing heat loss. This is achieved through thicker insulation, triple-glazed insulated windows, windows orientation to maximize light exposure, and efficient heat recovery ventilation (8thAvenue).

Vertical garden and or urban farming is incorporated into the design.

Electrical charging hubs for electric cars or bicycles are also installed on site. All the selected case studies are within 30 minutes commute to the city center; therefore, the communities encourage bicycle use instead of cars. Car sharing is practiced in some communities. Underground parking and surface parking spaces also open to the neighborhood in some cases.

Solar panel at Lilac, U.K.

Straw bale use at Lilac CoHousing, U.K. Garden at Trudeslund, Copenhagen

Garden at Lilac Co-Housing, UK §

Garden is built to create a cool climate for the site. Rain water is collected and stored underneath the garden, or connected to ponds for landscaping (Lilac CoHousing, UK), it is also used for irritation. In some cases, a greenhouse is built in the garden, it is a community gathering place and a dining place for share meals (Vrijburcht, Amsterdam). A variety of flowers and plants are purposely planted. Adopting the urban farming concept, plants are also cultivated on the rooftop garden as a source of vegetable foods, beehives are nurtured at the site (Kalkbreite, Zurich). Adaptive solar panels are used widely. Recycle materials are used to build the buildings (Co Habitat, Quebec, Canada), also environmental materials such as straw bale (Lilac, UK).

2. COMMON PROGRAMMING IN CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Implication: Both the construction techniques and operation programming can be considered in the Canadian context. Their essence is to utilize the community works to build and maintain the spaces. From construction materials to construction works, they are sourced from local made materials, local suppliers, local contractors, local volunteers and future residents. Regarding the maintenance works, the residents are divided into many working groups to maintain the places together. If the site is large, or it has commercial components, maintenance can be outsourced. Similarly, community essence is strong from coast to coast in Canada, implementing the mentioned tactics can save cost and create an inclusive place for the residents. a.

Construction

There are opportunities to keep cost down. Across sites, construction materials are made from renewable materials and locally sourced from local suppliers. The developers also utilize the volunteers from future residents, local artists, or neighbors to work on construction. These volunteers will have priorities when purchasing a residential unit, renting a commercial unit, or they can use some communal spaces. Further to reduce costs, other tactics include using modular built techniques, build and hand over the units at bare shell conditions, purchase interior furniture and fixtures in bulks.

v v v v v

Modular built Use recycle materials Use locally made materials Build and sell bare shell units Purchase interior furniture and fixtures in bulks

v Use volunteer workforce from future residents to do design, finish fixtures and interior design v Utilize volunteer workforce from local artists and neighbour to finish interior design for the internal spaces

b. Operation Communal programming is organized weekly to connect residents and maintain the shared space, the mandate is varied as the following: ยง Social program: movie night, shared meals, workshop class ยง Recreational activities: sauna, yoga, fitness, spa ยง Sustainable lifestyles: practice gardening, growing foods, nurturing beehives and plant species; cycling program, recycle program; program to learn essential skills. Adult and kids work together on these topics. ยง The community also invites the neighbors to attend its social activities. For instance, they open some of the shared spaces for public uses, or organize in-house festivals. ยง Some project also organizes tours for the external communities to visit and adopt best practices. Tours are paid tours, the collected fees are donated to the maintenance budget of shared spaces. Festival open to the public from Vrijburcht

Children workshop at the sailing school, Vrijburcht, Amsterdam

Residents at a planting program at Spreefeld, Berlin

§ §

For newly launched sites, frequent meetings are required. At established sites (more than 10 years old), the meeting frequency is less; however, they maintain communication and support each other’s when need be. The majority of the cases will organize community activities by themselves. Some cases outsource external services to maintain the spaces due to its large scale and the need of maintaining commercial areas (e.g. Vrijburcht, Kalkbreite)

Shared lunch at Trudeslund

Shared dinner at Spreefeld

§ The community have their own set of rules for the residents to abide to. Decision is made based on consensus. Budget is managed by the cooperative. § The residents are divided into many working groups to manage the site. They have teams for accounting, maintenance and repair, cooking, gardening, and so forth, it can go up to 16 groups in one case. The board of committees is elected and changed annually.

Community meeting at Cohabitat, Quebec

§ In some cases, software is designed to collect payment data and report to all members to increase transparency.

3. COMMON OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE Implication: All examined case studies in Europe were formed under a cooperative structure which lead by the community of prospective buyers. In Canada, this structure is recognized and can be applied especially in Ontario or Quebec as these two provinces allow co-ownership; British Columbia may require strata condominium legal structure instead. If the ownership structure is co-operative, it is recommended that the co-op allows home owners to exit from the project and realize capital gains from their shares after a certain time. Conditions can be impelled to restrict speculation and resale; however, this flexibility will encourage more members to join the co-housing projects. Besides, solutions to allow home ownership for low-income households will foster more inclusive diversity. The strata condominium is the most widely used structure in Canada, it allows individual ownership of the units. For convenience of small scale projects, the cohousing communities can consider this legal structure. Nevertheless, they might face challenges in distinguishing themselves with a private developer working for profit, authorities will challenge the status quo during the development and planning permit application. In practice, there were projects formed under a co-operative structure during the planning and construction stage, and is converted to a strata model upon project completion. For co-housing projects in Canada, the community land trust structure (CLTs) can also be applied, but not recommended, due to the stringent restrictions on ownership which may deter potential members. Furthermore, CLTs cannot leverage their land to secure financing as it is typically donated by the government, this might be a challenge for small scale co-housing projects as they cannot secure construction mortgage. CLTs is best executed with large scale affordable housing projects where there is a mixture of private and public partnerships to subsidize the project. a.

Europe | Co-operative company:

Model: The cooperative company acts as a developer. They purchase the land from a private owner, or rent the land from the government (long lease term from 50 years and beyond). They hire and manage external consultants and contractors to develop their own project. The company sources development financing by themselves. Partnership with other developers is recognized in innovative projects in Vienna or the UK.

Group Governance Future residents, professionals

Purchase/ Rent

Develop Co-Housing

Diagram 2. Typical structure for a co-housing development in Europe

Upon project completion, the cooperative rents the units to home occupiers. Typically, prospective buyers pay land fee for the entire lease tenure (50 years or more), the fee is based on their unit size. The buyers then purchase shares from the co-op in exchange for the rights to use their unit and shared spaces. They also pay monthly service charges to maintain the communal spaces. The shares price might be equivalent to the entire unit’s price, or a portion of the unit’s price (<50%). In the latter cases, the buyers pay an extra monthly rent. Prospective buyers are responsible to secure their own mortgage. In many cases, the co-op company will have a partner bank which is the major lender, the bank will vet the development and grant mortgage to the prospective buyer individually. The mortgage is then released in accordance to the development phases to pay for construction. §

Advantages: o Recognized by the government, land transfer tax is lower than traditional development; o Fairness in co-ownership and the division of duties; o Can handle the legal change of the apartments (extension, reduction); o Share owners can leave the property when they want; o Shares price is equivalent to the size of the units they want. Price is lower than market value. o The buyers can also pass their share rights to their heirs.

Disadvantage: o Raising initial equity from members, especially from the community with a mix of income is a challenge. Some members may not be qualified for mortgage and further be deterred by the legal structure of co-ownership, rather than full ownership. o In many cases, share price is fixed, price does not fluctuate with market value overtime. For resale, the share owner can only sell their shares at the initial price they purchased. o The board of the directors and the communities determine who can purchase shares from the co-op, this maintains the community cohesiveness and blocks speculation. It may make resale become more difficult. o Some co-operative allows residents to sell their shares on open market space, and allow the realization of capital gain from the units, if the cooperative owns the land.

b. UK, US, Canada | Community land trust company (CLTs): Model According to a published article on the International Journal of Housing Policy journal (Mike, R., 2018), there are three elements in a CLT. § CLT is a non-profit, community based vehicle to represent community interest in housing. § CLT has ownership of the land, it leases the property on the land to low income households in needs. It provides subsidy in perpetuity under conditions regarding purchase, sale and rent; thus, ensuring permanent affordability. § CLT creates a trust and can acquire more lands based on its capability to cover a wider scale of the communities. UK In England, government land is assigned in a CLT to build affordable housing, CLT usually has access to land that is not accessible by private developers. CLT, however, needs the private financing and the expertise from developers. Partnership with developers can help to execute the project. As a result, there are trusts working with private developers to develop a co-housing/affordable housing project as a part of a housing scheme. In fact, the development features from the private scheme can also provide additional values to the co-housing residents. There are many restrictions on purchase and resale of units on properties developed by CLT. Typically, these units are dedicated for low income households only. US This model was implemented in the US since the 60s. Now, there are more than 2,000 CLTs, the largest CLT in the US is the Champlain Housing Trust which owned 2,000 homes in 2016 (Transition by Design and Bioregional, 2015). Typically, the CLTs and the homeowner agree to enter a long-term ground lease (can last up

to 99 years). The homeowners have the rights to privacy, use of the property, and the right to transfer the property and the lease to their heirs (Lincoln Institute, 2005). ยง Others: In New York, there are cases where the provisions for rent increase is applied after a certain time. The rent increase causes serious issue when land value and property value increase; the affordable house is hence not affordable anymore. Canada In Canada, CLT is less established compared to the UK and US. There are co-operative CLTs, leaseto-own CLTs and facilitative CLTs (CMHC). Regardless of form, the CLT focused on owning the land, and lease the property on it (usually apartment units) to qualified tenants, the CLT must ensure the continued affordability is preserved in perpetuity (CMHC). ยง This model can be applied for existing organizations who have the capability to fund the project. For instance, Vancouver Community Land Trust Foundation is formed in 2014 between a non-profit housing association and co-federation (Globe and Mail, 2017). It was given a city land worth $25 million for $10 with a lease of 99 years (Globe and Mail, 2017). The project will release 358 units into the market, certain percentage of the units will be leased at $375 per month, other percentage is leased at market price, the lease of the affordable portion is valid up to 60 years (Globe and Mail, 2017). Obviously, this type of project can only be done with subsidies from many parties, both private and public, which are not typically accessible by small scale co-housing projects. c.

Canada | Strata/condominium co-housing:

In Canada, the research revealed only three co-housing cases that match the criteria of a multi-generation cohousing in urban areas and is built in the last 10 years. For the purpose of investigating the ownership legal structure, an extended search on 14 established co-housing projects registered on the Canadian Co-Housing Network has revealed that 80% co-housing groups chose strata/condominium structure, and they are mostly located in Calgary or British Columbia. In strata model, the community founders will form a company which can be registered as a non-profit company, a co-operative, or a limited liability partnership company. The company will represent the community and act as a developer. It purchases the land and provides development financing. When the project is completed, the ownership will change to condominium/strata title where individuals can purchase their own homes (REFBC, 2012). Home owners can have ownership as each unit has a separate title and can be mortgaged individually, they are responsible for their own mortgage (Habourside, 2018). Projects Wolf Willow Prairie Belterra Creekside Commons Roberts Creek Heddlestone Village

Resident Type Seniors Multi-generation Multi-generation Multi-generation Multi-generation Multi-generation

Location Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural

Province Saskatchewan Calgary British Columbia British Columbia British Columbia British Columbia

Title Strata-Condominium Strata-Condominium Strata-Condominium Strata-Condominium Strata-Condominium Strata-Condominium

Groundswell Co-Housing Yarrow Ecovillage Quayside Village Cranberry Commons Vancouver Co-Housing Pacific Gardens WindSong Habourside Cohabitat Terra Firma Solterra Oak Hill Co-living

Multi-generation

Rural

British Columbia

Strata-Condominium

Multi-generation Multi-generation Multi-generation Multi-generation Multi-generation Seniors Multi-generation Seniors Seniors Seniors

Urban Urban Urban Small town Small town Small town Urban Urban Small town Small town

British Columbia British Columbia British Columbia British Columbia British Columbia British Columbia Quebec Ontario Ontario Ontario

Strata-Condominium Strata-Condominium Strata-Condominium Strata-Condominium Strata-Condominium Strata-Condominium Cooperative Strata-Condominium Tenants in Common Tenants in Common

Table 3. List of established projects listed on Canadian Cohousing Network and Canadian Senior Cohousing

Under the Strata Property Act, the home owners can sell their unit/home on the open market (Habourside, 2018). The home owner has ownership right on the unit/home including a share of common land ownership and shared spaces. These projects include Belterra (Belterra, 2012), Cranberry Commons (CMHC, 2004), Creekside Commons (Creekside Commons), Habourside (Canadian Senior Cohousing). Occasionally, there are strata models allowing future residents to purchase shares from the company, which will then be returned to the coop when the resident leaves the community. In Ontario, the model allows the purchase and sell of shares under the tenant in common tittle, while it is coownership title in Quebec. Prairie in Calgary, Solterra and Oakhill in Ontario reported to have this model (Albertaview, 2014). In Quebec, the residents opt out for a cooperative ownership convert to strata upon project completion. The cooperative purchased their own land, the unit owners have full ownership rights to their units, and they can resale the units at market price. For co-housing model under strata title, there is no subsidy from Canadian government, the group works on the co-housing project must provide their own funding (Habourside, 2018). For bank or mortgage provider, they are not familiar with the co-housing model, especially dealing with the issues arise when a house owner resale their unit (Canadianarchitect, 2018). Special cases, senior co-housing: There are 18 senior co-housing projects listed on the Canadian Senior Cohousing, only four projects established and in operation, and they are unique in their own ways. o

Groundswell Co-Housing project is one of the developments in Yarrow Ecovillage. The group of founders formed Yarrow Ecovillage Society Cooperative and purchased 25 acres of farmland in 2002. Since then, they have worked on rezoning the site to an ecovillage site which is claimed as the first in Canada. In 2010, the Ecovillage submitted a proposal to include three elements, the farm, the residential and the commercial/mixed use. The residential portion is operated as Groundswell Co-Housing with has 31 homes, it was in operation in 2014. When the home owners occupy the units, the ownership title is strata-titled (Youngarian, 2014) (Yesc, 2018).

Solterra and Oakwood are not typical co-housing projects, the model is a single-family home purposely built for co-living. The home can host approximately four to six individuals, they get together, build a home and live together. They have their own bedrooms and share communal spaces. This model facilitates the planning approval process in contrast to a bigger co-housing site with 20+ units. This model may be suitable for senior co-housing, it may not work for a multi-generation co-housing where different demographic, age, and income live together in one house. Another advantage is that the law of Ontario and Quebec allowing co-ownership. For these homes, the owners own a share in the co-living home and they can sell it on the market legally, the share is considered as a part of the personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s estate and it can be sold or rented by the trustee of the co-owner (Solterra, 2018) (Oakhill, 2018).

Wolf Willow is the first senior co-housing project in Canada. The ownership is strata co-housing model.

4. COMMON FINANCIAL RESOURCES a.

Resources for developer:

The following table summarizes different financial resources from sample case studies. Further details are disclosed in the Appendix.

Funding Type

Resources

Via Verde, US

The government

Housing Preservation and Development of New York City provided a 1.5-acre land for $1

sale land at discounted price

Vrijburcht, Netherlands

Rented the land for 50 years at â&#x201A;Ź2 million from municipality

leased land at long term (50 years+) and discounted price The government provides fund for predevelopment phase for co-housing projects

The city authority formed teams to manage the approval process, zoning exceptions are made to facilitate the development.

N/A

The government provide grants for affordable housing component

$3.1 million equity investment during construction, and $32 million permanent finance from the Federal

Provide grants for seven assisted living units, 10 affordable units

Equity from partners

St Clement, UK

Kalkbreite, Switzerland

Sale land at discounted price to private and public developers. Selection criteria including development impact to the neighborhood, social diversity, design, sustainability, and innovation

Sourcing Land

The government

Alte Weberei, Austria

The government spend on land reclamation of the brownfield site, they also build infrastructure, and encourage community lead projects N/A *0.5% federal tax go to subsidized housing, Vienna receives and distributes approx.

Cohabitat, Canada

*Cohabitat group purchases their own land from private land owner, not from the government

Land is contributed by the City of London government

The cooperative rented from the city owned land, the lease is valid until 2070

N/A *The British government has issued a ÂŁ60 million funding for community led housing in 2016.

The government provided â&#x201A;Ź2 million for feasibility study. In exchange, the city council can manage the co-op financial accounts.

CMHC provided seed funding to complete the business plan and the preliminary design

N/A * City of London released 670 ha to affordable housing projects

10% of the apartments are subsidized given the design meets social housing requirements.

*Ontario has issued $600 million funding for affordable housing components

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit

Non-profit organizations (housing association, religious group, charitable foundations, etc) willing to provide funding to certain part of the projects Private developers can provide equity financing and defer development fee until when permanent financing is secured, it helps to reduce the equity burden at construction

Equity from future residents

Future residents provide funds for the designs and consulting services, additional fundings are rolled over into phases during construction For development with commercial units, future tenants provided a small percentage of lease

N/A

Rose Corporation provided $1 million equity and defer $4.7 million developer fee to develop the affordable housing component, they also provided $1.6 million equity and defer $1.5 million developer fee to develop the co-op housing

€467/year on affordable housing

De Key funds the commercial units (day care center, café), and underwrite unsold units, and shall rent them as social housing units N/A

B.R.O.T project is built by a Christian group

London Community Land Trust (London CLT) led the cohousing element

N/A

*Applied for various projects in the complex

Linden Homes provided equity to build the project. It sells the project to London CLT upon completion. London CLT is then sell the units to the low-income households

N/A

*The group of cofounders’ act as developer, they purchase the land and do not require members to pay for the land prior to completion. They don’t collect developer fee

Applied to all projects

deposit construction

during

The developer can get development loan at low interest rate from local government

Sourcing debt

Financing is sourced from social bank/ social investment fund. Standard first mortgage and second mortgage for commercial loan

Housing Development Corporation from New York provided $58.5 million taxable bonds, the bond is floated during construction with a line of credit issued by JP Morgan; they further provided $23 million for permanent financing. HPD provided $18.7 million capital subsidy during construction, and another $18.7 permanent financing $3.1 million bridge financing provided by Calvert Foundation

N/A

*Applied for various projects in the complex

N/A

Received low interest loan from the City of Zurich given the project discloses information about sustainability aspects to serve urban communities

N/A

Triodos bank, the Ecology Building Society and the Cooperative Bank

*work differently across projects

Ecology financial institution

N/A

Applied to all projects

Table 4. List of Projects and Funding Resources. Note. *information is not relevant to the project, but it is the current state of the financial resource

b. Resources for residents Finance and ownership §

The major source of financing is from individual mortgage. The advantage of co-housing projects is that the unit price is low. Reduction in cost is due to government sponsorship, the reduction in development fee as the community built it themselves, or the co-operative delivers bare-shell units and the residents do fit out completion by themselves. Furthermore, there are units in the co-housing projects which are sold at social housing prices.

Innovative financing system has been structured to allow ownership of co-housing type. o

Kalkbreite: The cooperative set up a solidarity fund to fund low income households who do not have enough capital to move in. The fund derived from the membership fee of the co-operative (1,000 CHF), private investors can also invest in the co-operative (>1,000 CHF); the fund has 1,000 members as of 2015 (Stephanie, Z. 2016).

Spreefeld: the residents pay 50% equity stake for their unit (€1,000/sqm), in return, they get a share of the cooperative. After that, the remaining 50% is paid as rent; rent cost is varied from €4-€6.5/sqm, this fee is used to cover the operating cost of the building, rent rate is well below the rent in Mitte, Berlin (Righttobuild). If the resident terminates the contract with the cooperative, they get their equity deposit back with interest. If the resident does not have sufficient deposit, the cooperative can provide personal loan credit.

Seestern Aspern: The community group (Seestern Aspern) worked with a non-profit organization who acts as the developer. Upon completion, the group rented the whole building from the developer, and sublet it to future residents. Part of the rent will be used to pay off the developer’s loan and the building will belong to Seestern Aspern group after 30 years.

La Borda: Part of equity is raised through micro lending campaign, the campaign raised crowd funding and it called for small contribution from individuals in Europe, the amount can be as small as a few hundred euros with the payback period from 10 to 15 years.

In places like Amsterdam, the lower income households could apply for a special mortgage system, called the AMH (Amsterdam Middlesegment Mortgage) (Stephanie, Z. 2015). AMH requires the dwellings price between €135,000-€185,000, and if the dwellings are sold after 10 years of mortgage, the profit must be returned to the municipality, it is no longer exist today (Stephanie, Z. 2016).

St. Clement: London CLT (an urban community trust) purchased the building from the developer, and immediately sell all units to a group of preselected home owners. The sale cost is linked to the local median income, not market value, current sale price is half the market value. Resale price is also linked to median income of local neighborhood, not market value. The home owner is selected based on housing needs, connection to the local community, the ability to secure mortgage, and the commitment to support the communities through London CLT. Each home owner raises their own mortgage with support from London CLT.

5. COMMON STAKEHOLDERS SUPPORT a.

Government:

EU: Co-housing projects have strong support from local government, it ranges from land support, infrastructure support, finance support, innovation support and so forth. Projects with high viability, user diversity, sustainability aspects for the communities are favored. o Gemany: City of Hamsburg has a specific department to facilitate co-housing project, they coordinated 1,800 co-housing developments in the last decade (Beacon, 2013). In Freigburg, the city council prioritizes development rights to co-housing projects on top of private developers. In Berlin, approximately 1,000 co-housing units have been developed since 1975. The Federal Germany Development Bank (A., Nelson, 2018) also offered funding of up to €75,000 per household if the housing project has sustainability features. o Switzerland: Zurich city has published a development strategy aiming for at least 25% of total housing stock in non-profit apartments until 2025; In 2050, one third of the rental apartments is non-profit (Plüss & Schenkel, 2014). Since 1998, 10,000 homes have been built under the cooperative groups, these projects created both social and economic impact to citizens. o Denmark: there is a database for residents to register their interest in co-housing projects across the nation. When the database reaches the maximum number, they will start planning.

UK: In the UK, there are 225 community trusts reported in England and Wales as of 2016. With the activities of these trusts, there are only 700 homes built, and a further 3,000 units are under-construction until 2020. In an effort to increase affordable housing, the UK government announced a launch of Community Housing Fund which will provide an annual fund of £60 million for community lead projects across 150 councils in England (GOV.UK, 2016). There are also active organizations who work with the government to initiate the scheme, they are the Community Land Trusts Network, Confederation of Co-op Housing, Nationwide Foundation, Community Housing Alliance, Rural Coalition

Canada: The government is slow in supporting co-housing projects. Typically, co-housing projects entail the purchase of several land plots and assembly them, and so rezoning is requested. However, many projects face zoning approval delay. Project Pairie encountered severe delay in obtaining permitting license from City of Calgary (Albertaview, 2014). Cohabitat faced four-year court battle to recognize the co-operative development as a non-profit model. Bulkley Valley Telkwa group had a failed co-housing project due to the slow recognition of local authority, it made nine attempts to purchase a land plot from the town council-Town of Smither (TS); TS refused all their suggestions. The project failed despite having a strong financial support. BC Housing approved 100% construction loan to the group at a very low interest rate in return for 51% affordable housing units. CMHC also agreed to grant $120,000 from their Seed and Project Development Funding and the members were ready to fund $4 million to the project (Canadian Senior Housing, 2016). Should the project be realized, it provided affordable units to the areas. o In Ontario, nevertheless, there are $600 million funding putting forwards to enact more affordable housing projects in the province (Ontario government, 2017).

b. Consultants (sourcing from in-house or non-profit organizations, it helps to reduce the costs) There are many consultants involved in a development. Technical consultants including cost estimator, project manager, engineer, planning consultants and so forth are utilized from non-profit organizations in Europe. There, multidisciplinary consulting firms contract with the city council to provide supporting services for co-housing projects. Stattbau, for instance, has such contract with City of Berlin and has supported more than 160 cohousing groups over eight years (Beacon, 2013), they got certificates of the government. In Canada, there are very few consulting firms as such.

III.

Social banks and non-profit organizations In Europe, there are various social banks that fund co-housing projects, from national to regional scale. Some examples including Triodos bank, the Ecology Building Society, the Co-operative Bank, and Nürnberg’s green UmweltBank. There are more financing models, such as communal fund rotating loans, or individual private loans guaranteed by the community. A community housing association or philanthropic organization might also grant funds on the basis that they will own rental units for low-income households. CONCLUSION

The collection of case studies presented here provides a basic framework of co-housing. It is clear that the model faces multiple challenges; however, it can be executed successfully if metrics are measured right. Further research focused on the available resources including government schemes, funding resources, and land resources to develop a co-housing project in Canada should be deployed. Further consideration on build technologies to reduce construction cost and increase sustainability practices is another dimension to explore. Lastly, structuring a cohesive governance through different stages of the project is vital. Below are several key wrap-ups. a. § § § § §

Challenges:

The biggest challenge is land and finance. Many successful cases in Europe and the US received city councils’ support, they donated land or leased land at discounted price, hence reducing land cost; the government also has specific fund to facilitate affordable housing and co-housing projects. In Canada, such fund is limited. Secondly, rezoning approval and development permits approval are slow in Canada. The third challenge is home owner recruitment. The process of recruiting interested homeowners who are willing to live together and contribute to the community lifestyle is complicated. It takes time to find the group of people, and each community group must create their own way to retain members. Fourth is the conflict of interest. For decision making, a strong governance must be implemented. Else, getting opinions of the entire community will procrastinate the process, especially before and during construction phases. Fifth is the legal ownership structure. Co-ownership structure may face difficulties in gaining mortgage, purchasing, and sale of the units. Often, the lender requires a security as collateral for the mortgage. If the co-op does not own the land, its security is only the building, this might reduce the amount of money they can borrow, or they may not get the loan. Co-ownership structure also requires permission from the land owners and the property owner for any changes in the projects. In the long term, getting approval and agreements on the project extension, or repair and maintenance may be a tiring process. b. Success Factors

§ § § § § §

Buying land without zoning and planning permission is risky and time-consuming. At inception, the group should incorporate the government in their planning process to ensure approval can occur. They can also negotiate to get a discounted price on government owned land. Potential land can be purchased from the government owned land bank, serviced lands within the 416 and in defined growth area, and with easy access to amenities. The rise of ethical banks and non-profit organizations can be a strong source of additional fundings. Governance structure of the community lead group can be divided into several sub-groups. The board of committees can contact each sub-group to fasten the decision process and ensure all requests are served. Resale right: typically, members cannot resale their homes at its market price. This might push off potential members as the exit way is blocked. If the community allows transaction on open market, it might encourage more buyers to get involved. The common controversy that co-housing is community based at small scale, and is not a solution to solve urban density might be untruth. Cases such as Aspen or Via Verde has proved the extra success of the sites, if co-housing is mixed with commercial initiatives, or private development. Bigger scale projects help to

ยง

revitalize a whole neighborhood, while co-housing elements provide more housing forms for the residents. Co-housing can also be applied in co-operative public housing to revitalize the old buildings. New technologies have facilitated better construction techniques at lower price. Popular practices including modular housing, 3D printing, recycled materials, design for sustainable uses should also be incorporated. This does not only reduce cost, fasten construction pace, it is also a positive sale pitch to the government, investor, and grant sponsors. Building form can change to optimize private spaces and maximize shared spaces. Shared spaces can also open to the neighborhood. Hence, it fosters an inclusive diversity neighborhood.

REFERENCES City of Toronto. (2017, February 09). 2016 Census: Population and Dwelling Counts. Retrieved from: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/96b9-2016-Census-Backgrounder-PopulationDwellings.pdf City of Toronto. (2016, October 26). 2016 Census: Housing, Immigration and Ethnic Cultural Diversity, Aboriginal peoples. Retrieved from: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/8ca4-5.-2016-CensusBackgrounder-Immigration-Ethnicity-Housing-Aboriginal.pdf City of Toronto. (2017, May 04). 2016 Census: Age and Sex; Type of Dwelling. Retrieved from: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/96d7-2016-Census-Backgrounder-Age-Sex-DwellingType.pdf StatCan. (2016). Census Profile 2016. Retrieved from: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dppd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=535&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchTe xt=Caledon%20East&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All Joseph, Filipowicz. (2018). Room to Grow: Comparing Urban Density in Canada and Abroad. Fraser Institute Bulletin. Retrieved from: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/room-to-grow-comparing-urbandensity-in-canada-and-abroad.pdf Graham, Haines, et.al. (2017, November 7). Bedrooms in The Sky. Is Toronto Building The Right Condo Supply? Ryerson, City Building Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.citybuildinginstitute.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/FINAL-BedroomsInTheSky.pdf Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs. (2017, May). Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Retrieved from: http://placestogrow.ca/images/pdfs/ggh2017/en/growth%20plan%20%282017%29.pdf Neptis Foundation. (2017). Components of the Land Supply in GGH. Retrieved from: http://www.neptis.org/publications/update-total-land-supply-even-more-land-available-homes-and-jobs-greatergolden-1 Neptis Foundation. (2016, October). No Shortage of Land for Homes in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Retrieved from: http://www.neptis.org/publications/no-shortage-land-homes-greater-toronto-andhamilton-area PSH Urban Mode. 2016. Spreefeld https://psh.urbamonde.org/#/en/community/23

Bau-

und

Wohngenossenschaft.

Retrieved

from:

VLUGP. 2016. Vrijburcht. Collective and Private Patronage. Retrieved from: https://climateadapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/vrijburcht-a-privately-funded-climate2013proof-collective-garden-inamsterdam/amsterdam_document1_uk.pdf Right to Build Tool Kit. Case Studies, Vrijburcht, http://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/case-studies/vrijburcht-amsterdam/#

Amsterdam.

Retrieved

from:

Right to Build Tool Kit. Case Studies, Spreefeld Genossenschaft, Berlin. Retrieved from: http://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/case-studies/spreefeld-genossenschaft-berlin/# Right to Build Tool Kit. Case Studies, Kalkbreite, Zurich. Retrieved from: http://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/casestudies/kalkbreite-zurich/#

8th Avenue. Retrieved from: http://www.eighthavenue.ca/Sustainability/ ULI Case Studies. Via Verde. Retrieved from: https://casestudies.uli.org/via-verde/ Stephanie Zeulevoet. (2016, January 4). Collective self-organised housing and affordability: Evaluating aspects of CSO housing in relation to housing affordability for starters. Retrieved from: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:76a43029-69e1-4d4f-a569 e343e4144b86/datastream/OBJ9/download PlĂźss, L., & Schenkel, W. (2014). Governing Urban Diversity: Creating Social Cohesion, Social Mobility and Economic Performance in Todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hyper-diversified Cities. Urban Policies on Diversity. Mike Rowe. (2018, January). Community Land Trusts, Affordable Housing and Community Organising in Low Income Neighbourhoods. International Journal of Housing Policy, 18 (Issue 1), p. 103-123. Retrieved from: https://journals-scholarsportalinfo.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/details/19491247/v18i0001/103_cltahacoiln.xml&sub= Rosalind, Greenstein. (2005). Community Land Trusts, Leasing Land for Affordable Housing. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Retrieved from: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/community-land-trusts CMHC. Community Land Trusts. Retrieved schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/afhoce/afhoce/afhostcast/afhoid/fite/colatr/colatr_001.cfm

from:

https://www.cmhc-

Franes Bula. (2017, November 12). A speculation-free zone. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/how-community-land-trusts-could-help-buildaffordable-vancouverhousing/article34026679/ Co-Housing Berlin. Retrieved from: http://www.cohousing-berlin.de/en/projects Trudeslund. Co-Housing Cultures. Retrieved from: https://cohousing-cultures.net/projects/trudeslund/?lang=en Ines Peborde. (2016, Septermber 12). Co-Housing in Europe #1: La Borda, Spain. Cities in Transition. Retrieved from: https://citiesintransition.eu/interview/co-housing-in-europe-1-la-borda-barcelona VLUGP. Retrieved from: https://www.vlugp.nl/projecten/projectvoorstel-update-landschapsplan-2026/ Salla Korpela. (2012). Casa Malta: A Case Study of a Contemporary Co-Housing Project in Helsinki. JSTOR. 38(3), 336-344. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23290267.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Afe36124186a95ad21c799c4ced667a0d Archinfo. Malta Housing. Retrieved from: http://navi.finnisharchitecture.fi/en/helsingin-malta-housing-cooperative/ Lisa. Retrieved from: http://www.lisa.co.at/ Seestadt Aspern. Bauplatzd. Retrieved from: http://www.brot-aspern.at/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/BROTAspern-Bauherrenpreis-2015.pdf Urban Design: A typology of procedures and products. Jon Lang. Aspern Seestadt. Right to build. Retrieved from: http://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/case-studies/vienna/#

Esther Jones. (2018, January 01). Another way to live. Metropolitan Barcelona. Retrieved from: http://www.barcelona-metropolitan.com/features/report-cohousing/ ULI Case Studies. Paseo Verde. Retrieved from: https://casestudies.uli.org/paseo-verde/ Climate Adapt Europa. Vrijburcht: a privately funded climate proof collective garden in Amsterdam. Retrieved from: http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/vrijburcht-a-privately-funded-climate2013proofcollective-garden-in-amsterdam Eduard Cabré. (2017, July 27). La Borda: A case study on the implementation of Cooperative Housing in Catalonia. Retrieved from: http://ladinamofundacio.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/CABRE_ANDRES_2017.pdf Umweltbank. The Cooperative Project Spreefeld in Berlin. Umweltbank, Financed projects. Retrieved from: https://www.umweltbank.de/finanzieren/finanzierte-projekte/sauber-finanziert-jeder-profitiert/wohnprojektspreefeld Spreefeld Housing Group. Facebook. Retrieved from: https://www.facebook.com/spreefeld https://www.freitag.de/autoren/der-freitag/alles-am-fluss Tassilo Letzel. 2015. Spreefeld Berlin Materialsammlung. Retrieved from: https://vimeo.com/138637067 Aspern Seestadt. Retrieved from: https://www.aspern-seestadt.at/en Caroline Lindquist. (2015, June 9). Creative Sustainability Based On Zusammenarbeiter. Retrieved from: http://transition.web.unc.edu/2015/06/09/a-creative-sustainability-based-on-zusammenarbeiter/ WKOA. ( 2017, May 18). Conference And Matchmaking The Future Of Building - Project Visits In Vienna. Retrieved from: https://www.b2match.eu/system/building2017/files/Tour_2_Innovative_Solutions.pdf?1494501932 Aspern Seestadt. Smart City what’s the story? Retrieved from: https://www.aspern-seestadt.at/jart/prj3/aspern/data/downloads/aspern_SmartCityWien_Eng_issuu_2018-0219_1102404.pdf Vienna Business Agency, Technology center Seestadt. Retrieved https://viennabusinessagency.at/property/technology-centre-seestadt/technology-centre-seestadt/

from:

Jessica Bridger. (2016, Novermber 29). The Kalkbreite Co-Op Complex & Zurich’s Cooperative Renaissance. Metropolis. Retrieved from:http://www.metropolismag.com/cities/housing/kalkbreite-co-op-zurich-cooperativerenaissance/ Pension Kalkbreite. At home with friends in Zurich. Retrieved from: https://www.pensionkalkbreite.net/en/house Oliver Wainwrigth. (2017, Novermber). The radical model fighting the housing crisis: property prices based on income. The Guardian. Retrieved from:https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/16/radical-model-housingcrisis-property-prices-income-community-land-trusts Press release. Government UK. £60 million boost for communities affected by second homeownership. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/60-million-boost-for-communities-affected-by-second-homeownership

Press release. Government UK. (2014, March 20). Mayor kick starts landmark St Clements community housing scheme. Mayor of London, London Assembly. Retrieved from: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases-6104 Melanie Saltzman. (2017, Feburary 12). Cohousing communities help prevent social isolation. Retrieved from: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cohousing-communities-help-prevent-social-isolation Kate Youde. (2018, March 09). Cohousing, we are all in this together. The Architects’ Journal. Retrieved from: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/co-housing-were-all-in-this-together/10028797.article Harrier, Sherwood. (2014, November 21). How to create happy communities through co-housing. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/nov/21/how-to-create-happy-communities-throughco-housing Global ecovillage network. Retrieved from: https://ecovillage.org/region/gen-europe/ecovillage-projects/ Preorg. 2014. Mutual home ownership and its suitability for small co-operatives. Retrieved from: http://preorg.org/mutual-home-ownership-and-its-suitability-for-small-co-operatives/ Caroline Grégoire. (2014, March 11). First Cohabitat in Quebec. La Presse. Retrieved from: http://www.caissesolidaire.coop/qui-nous-sommes/publications-et-salle-de-presse/bulletins/2013/Cohabitatinauguration.html Projets Verts. Cohabitat Quebec. Retrieved from: http://projetsverts.voirvert.ca/projets/cohabitat-quebec Naiobh O’connor. (2018, January 28). Resident dishes on life in Vancouver first cohousing development. Vancouver Courier. Retrieved from: http://www.vancourier.com/community/resident-dishes-on-life-invancouver-s-first-cohousing-development-1.23149536#standardArticleCarousel Vancouver Cohousing Tours. Retrieved from: https://vancouvercohousing.com/cohotours/ Bapacoustic Vancouver Cohousing. Retrieved from: https://bapacoustics.com/?viba_portfolio=vancouvercohousing-1733-east-33rd-ave-vancouver Habourside. How is Cohousing different from a Cooperative or a Conventional Strata Title / Condominium? Retrievedfrom:http://www.harbourside.ca/pdf/How%20is%20Cohousing%20different%20from%20a%20Coop.pd f Canadian Architect. The Cohousing Option. Retrieved from: https://www.canadianarchitect.com/features/thecohousing-option/ Washington Village. Retrieved from: https://www.washington-village.com/location Jay Romano. 1998. YOUR HOME; Co-ops That Don't Own Their Land. New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/22/realestate/your-home-co-ops-that-don-t-own-their-land.html Beacon. Alternative housing delivery: Baugruppen. Retrieved from: http://www.beaconpathway.co.nz/images/uploads/Background_Alternative_housing_delivery_Baugruppen.pdf Verana Lihs. Multigenerational Co-Housing-projects in the legal form of a registered cooperative. Federal Institute for Research on building, urban affairs and spatial development. Retrieved from: http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/EN/RP/GeneralDepartmentalResearch/Housing/MultigenerationalCohousing/01 _Start_dossier.html?nn=1469634&notFirst=true&docId=387452

Tübingen university. (2015, April). Tübingen-modellen Användning av Byggemenskap i Tyskland för hållbar stadsutveckling. Retrieved from: https://byggtjanst.se/globalassets/event--moten/konferenser--evenemang/ecoforum-2015/landningssida/presentationer/2015-04-23_stockholm_konferens_selinaheinrich_7.pdf Damira Davletyarova. (2014, August). Creating a community: cohousing at Terra Firma. Retrieved from: http://www.ottawalife.com/article/creating-a-community-cohousing-at-terra-firma Planet Friendly, the community page. Retrieved from: http://www.planetfriendly.net/community.html Sharon Crowther. 2017. Two New Cohousing Developments Spouting in Alberta. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/calgary-and-edmonton/two-new-co-housing-developmentssprouting-in-alberta/article36335850/ Dorothy Buckland. Belterra Cohousing. Retrieved from: http://www.belterracohousing.ca/newsletter.html http://www.cohabitat.ca/j3RB/images/stories/Documents/Articles/1111_CCN_Newsletter_Fall2011.pdf Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation. 2004. Residential Intensification Case Studies: Built Projects. Retrieved from: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/pdf/63440.pdf Creekside Commons. Creekside Commons Cohousing: Information For Prospective Purchasers. Retrieved from:http://creeksidecommons.net/wp-content/uploads/Info-for-Purchasers-Jan-2017.pdf Canadian Senior Cohousing. 2011. Field http://canadianseniorcohousing.com/?page_id=67

Trip

Creekside

Commons.

Retrieved

from:

Co Housing Association of the United States. Policy Database. Retrieved from: http://www.cohousing.org/policydatabase Canadian Senior Cohousing. Habourside. Retrieved from: http://canadianseniorcohousing.com/?page_id=20 http://www.refbc.com/sites/default/files/HOW%20TO%20-%20Create%20New-Build%20Cohousing.pdf Fellowship for Intentional Community. Pacific Gardens Cohousing https://www.ic.org/directory/pacific-gardens-cohousing-community/

Community.

Retrieved

from:

Robercreek Community. Retrieved from: http://www.robertscreekcohousing.ca/CoHoLeaflet.pdf Garbutt+Dumas. (2016, December 12). The different types of property ownership. Retrieved from: http://www.garbuttdumas.ca/different-types-property-ownership/ Canadian Senior Cohousing. Bulkley http://canadianseniorcohousing.com/?page_id=602

Valley

Talkwa

Cohousing.

Retrieved

from:

Groundswell overview. Yes, Cooperative. Retrieved from: http://marketing-moment.ca/yesc/groundswell/ Sara Dent. (2014, October). Yarrow Ecovillage And Groundswell Cohousing Tours. Retrieved from http://youngagrarians.org/yarrow-ecovillage-and-groundswell-cohousing-tours/ Oakhill Coliving. Retrieved from: https://oakhillcoliving.wordpress.com/investors/

Canadian Senior Cohousing. Solterra http://canadianseniorcohousing.com/?page_id=1576

Cohousing.

Retrieved

from:

BAUGRUPPE! Handbook. Retrieved from: http://www.iprpraha.cz/uploads/assets/dokumenty/obecne/bau_manual_en_online.pdf Transformative Social Innovation theory. This project has received funding from the European Unionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 613169. CASE STUDY Report: cohousing: the eco-district of Vauban and the cohousing project GENOVA. Retrieved from: https://iriskunze.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/cohousing_vauban_2015_07_16_report_ik_ap_publication_trans it.pdf

APPENDIX

CASE STUDY IN EUROPE APPENDIX 1 | NETHERLANDS

VRIJBURCHT, AMSTERDAM Building overview

Year of Operation Total Cost Developer, Finance Providers Location & Accessibility

2008 (planning period: 2001-2005, construction: 2005-2008) €16 Million in 2007 Vrijburcht Stichting Foundation, De Key, RABO Bank

Land Ownership

Vrijburcht Stichting foundation (VS), formed by the residents, rented public land from Amsterdam’s municipality for 50 years. The residents do not have land ownership Total land area is 4,400 sqm, of which, the shared community spaces are 1,700 sqm and shared garden and greenhouse are 585 sqm 52 owner occupied units with size varied from 65-256 sqm. Types include apartment, studio, and maisonette. 151 residents from various background: youth with slight mental impairment, millennials, family and seniors 3 business rooms, 2 guest rooms, assisted living facilities, communal room, workshop rooms (for painting and carpentry), bicycle shed, underground parking, day care, nursery, café, theater, green courtyard with a green house, swimming pier, dock for sailing boat €2,420/sqm in 2006. Overall, it costs €157,000-€619,520 per unit compared to €900,000 FMV in the area. Residents also pay for service charge €19/sqm/year. Gardening

Land area/ Land use Apartment type Residents Facilities Pricing Sustainability practices

Ijburg District, Amsterdam. It is 15 minutes by tram from the city centre and international railway.

BUSINESS MODEL and FINANCE The development was built under a model called Collectief Particulier Opdrachtgeverschap” which means “Collective Private Commissioning’’ (CPO), a legal structure that allows the residents to collaborate and build their own homes. The residents secure their individual mortgages which are then drawn down in stages to pay for the construction fee. All mortgages are provided by one bank. For Vrijburcht, the residents formed a cooperative company and use it as the main representative to hire the builder contractor. The cooperative company was vetted by the bank so their members can obtain mortgages. In

addition, there will be a housing association acts as a guarantor to underwrite any unsold units, it helped to facilitate bank funding approval. § § §

Partnered with the government to rent the land. The 50 years lease costs €2 million with option for renewal after lease expiry. Partnered with De Key, a National Housing Program, to get funding for the schematic design and the first phase of the project. De Key purchased the café and assisted homes. Also, if the project could not get enough buyers, they would purchase the unsold units and rent them as social housing units. RABO Bank funded phase 1 and provided low interest mortgage to home buyers.

The construction costs €16 million. The design fee and construction works are paid by mortgages from individual residents. The residents also pay service charge to maintain the shared spaces. They are allowed to sell their homes on the open market. ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT At project inception, Vrijburcht Stichting foundation prepared a proposal to submit to the municipality. Afterwards, the municipality supported the project and provided a team of experts in construction, urbanism, social housing, land lease and public space to consult VS. VS also hired external consultants (architects, engineers) to prepare the design which abides to zoning by law. DESIGN All working spaces are in the ground floor and connected to public spaces. Units are centralized around the courtyard; the size is optimized to maximize the waterfront units and commercial spaces. The waterfront units cater to families as they are more likely to use the space. Yellow units on the ground floor are the theatre, office, sailing school and daycare center; there is a mini green courtyard with trees, vegetable garden, picnic benches a greenhouse. For the first floor, yellow units are shared green house, guest apartments, theatre and assisted living units.

First

floor

Ground floor

SUSTAINABILITY The garden provides cool climate during the hot summer. Rain water is stored in two underground tanks underneath the courtyard, they can store up to 6,000 L of water. The water covers the irrigation needs of the year. The garden is designed for maximum permeability of rain water, but it also creates a structure to lead water flows from high to low areas, it enhances vegetation diversity and prevents flooding. Creeping plants also prevents leakage. The garden costs €50,000, rainwater storage facility costs €17,000 and the greenhouse costs €30,000. Maintenance costs €3,000 per year due to the volunteer works of the residents. OPERATION AND COMMUNITY PROGRAM The community established Vrijburcht Homeowner Association (VHA), a homeowners’ association, VHA manages the financial reserve from rent and pay for building maintenance and shared facilities; they overlook the community, send newsletters, and organise assembly with all residents. De Key leases the assisted living units from VHA and run the communal café centre and day care centre, it pays rent to VHA. VF remained as a management unit for the theatre, common rooms, guest rooms, docks and garage, and acting landlord for the commercial units. There are various working groups, committees and volunteers organise activities. After 10 years of running, the social activities are claimed to decrease. However, residents willing to take care of each other.

APPENDIX 2 | GERMANY SPREEFELD GENOSSENSCHAFT, BERLIN

Year of Operation Total cost

2014 (planning period: 2007-2012, construction: 2012-2014) £11.8 Million in 2014

Developer, Providers

Spreefeld Berlin eG,

Finance

Location

Wilhelmine-Gemberg-Weg 10-14, Kreuzberg, Mitte Berlin, the site is 20 minutes from the city centre by public transit

Land Ownership

Spreefeld Berlin eG (SB) purchased the site at an open bidding auction at a 13 months option. It finally purchased the site at a price €2.52 million after gaining permit approval. Land: 7,414 sqm. § Residential area for standard flat: 3,580 sq m (54-290 sqm/flat). Six cluster apartment units: 1,905 sqm. § Ten commercial units (workshop & offices): 980 sq m (44-273 sqm/unit). § Communal spaces: 350 sqm. Communal terrace: 420 sqm. Option rooms for public uses for social or cultural projects: 384 sqm. Shared garden and greenhouse. 65 owner occupied apartments are in three seven storey blocks 140 residents of diverse income, age and ethnicity guest rooms, fitness, salon, laundry room, music room, rooftop terrace, youth room, multipurpose rooms, children day care centre, workshop carpentry, boat house with a boat €2,100/sqm, bare-shell apartments, residents do their own fit out. Cost is three times less than comparables in the area. § Passive house standard (renewable wood, geothermal and solar energy source), modular building design and construction § Reduce carbon footprint, generate renewable energy, electric-car-share and enjoy private and community spaces

Land area/ Land use

Apartment type Residents Facilities Pricing Sustainability practices

BUSINESS MODEL and FINANCE The residents formed a cooperative. The cooperative purchased the land, built the buildings, and rented the units to residents (PSH Urban Mode, 2016). Umwelt Bank financed the project. The cooperative purchased the land through an extended option of 13 months. It uses the time to proceed the design, secure finance and development permit. After gaining a permit, it purchased the site at €2.5 million, construction costed €14.2 million. The residents pay 50% equity stake for their unit (€1,000/sqm), in return, they get a share of the cooperative. After that, the remaining 50% is paid as rent; rent cost is varied from €4-€6.5/sqm, this fee is used to cover the operating cost of the building, rent rate is well below the rent in Mitte, Berlin. If the residents terminate the

contract with the cooperative, they get their equity deposit back with interest. If the residents do not have sufficient deposit, the cooperative can provide personal loan credit. Construction only begins when there are sufficient registrations. The cooperative received 600 applications in 2012 due to its affordable approach, the possibility to owe shares in a cooperative and pass it on to their children attract potential residents. The community concept is also the core approach which is reflected in design to maximize usage of communal spaces. DESIGN The site allocates three architects work with three separate group of residents, a fourth architect works as master planner to control the overall design. Each block has distinctive feature, one has large balconies, others have double height spaces. On the ground floors of the three blocks, each block contains offices and communal spaces. The buildings have ten commercial units to serve various purposes, it includes co-working spaces, studio, gallery, architecture offices, coffee shops and day care centre. Building costs are kept down due to: Â§ Modular building design and concrete frame for the three blocks. Â§ Buying kits of fixture: windows, balconies, doors. Residents install themselves. Especially, the project features clustered apartments, individual studios that connect to larger units. For instance, eleven people live in eight apartments or four families share two floors. Everyone has their own bathroom, bedroom, and their own kitchen; the bigger kitchen, the living room, and the terrace are shared by residents. A resident of a cluster apartment who uses 1 bedroom apartment (40sqm) can also access to the shared community spaces (20sqm) of the cluster apartment (240sqm), that resident pays approximately â&#x201A;Ź240 per month as of 2017. SUSTAINABILITY The building materials are made by wood for exterior wall, wood balconies. The building creates their own renewable energy through a cogeneration unit, a geothermal system and photovoltaics. Renewable energy runs through the whole site. It has less elevators and wasted spaces. Thick walls and windows trapped heat in the winter, water pipes are installed underneath the floor, it warms the building in winter. During summer time, the residents can open the windows and the building materials keep the air climate cool. Garden and riverfront spaces are open to the public. It has rooftop garden, terrace balconies.

OPERATION AND COMMUNITY PROGRAM The community organized events through social media platforms such as facebook and twitter. They have assembly meeting once per month. There are various event types from free woodwork workshops, planting and gardening events, dance events for disabled people, joint cooking class, yoga classes, and so forth. Events open to both the community and pubic. The boat house with a boat belongs to the community use. They organize parties and yoga classes on the rooftop of the house, benches are also provided during the summer. ALTE WEBEREI, TUBINGEN

Year of Operation Location /Accessibility Land Ownership Land area/ Land use Apartment Type Residents Pricing

2015 (Planning: 2008-2014) The site is located in Lustnau district which is approximately 2 miles away from the city centre. The cooperation rented the land plot from city of Helsinki. Land: 6 ha developed into 300 homes Various custom-built homes and apartments Mixed income, age, ethnicity 10-20% cheaper than private built homes

INNOVATION IN BUSINESS MODEL The development is facilitated by the city council of Tubigen which is considered as one of the most innovative towns in Germany. The city council owns the land plot, it is brown field industrial sites, they want to revitalize the site (Geograf Heinrich, 2015). They undertook extensive consultations with local communities to understand what the local residents want, they also called for an open competition to develop a master plan for the site. The master plan has taken into account the site issues including flooding, contamination, and heritage reserve. It also states clearly the maximum heights, building lines, development ratio for the cooperative to comply with, planning permit is granted straightforward. The council spent their own fund to construct the street and land remediation work to prepare the plots for the cooperation. Next, they call for land price bidding from local cooperative group. The feature below shown land price per plot, the plot near the riverside costs up to €850/sqm, it is one of the most expensive plots. Each plot can develop from 15-30 homes, plots can cost from €52,000-€182,000 per plot. It was reported to receive 140 groups pitching for 40-50 parcels of land. The range of homes that have been built is from luxury units to riverside affordable housing. Selection criteria is based on the development impact to the neighborhood, the social diversity, design, sustainability and innovation. The council does not request detail design, but a detail description of the cooperative business model and the corresponding sites they choose.

Source: Righttobuildtookit, 2014

APPENDIX 3 | AUSTRIA ASPERN SEESTADT, VIENNA

2015 (planning: 2010-2013), phase 1 (2013-2016), phase 2&3: 2016-2028

Year of Operation Developer, Providers

Financial Various Developers

Location Accessibility

and

Land Ownership Land area/ Land use Development Type

Ostbahnbegleitstraße, 1220 Vienna, Austria

Land: §

Residents Facilities Pricing

Integrate other functions into the sites. Share workplace building, wellness building, religious buildings, schools for children with different abilities, labs on urban mobility, technology and business center. § Mixed use townhouse complex for owner occupier apartments, coworking spaces and shared facilities. Mixed income, age and ethnicity Business parks, transit, Varied depending on project

Sustainability Practices

All buildings must comply with the total Quality Building Assessment of the Austrian Sustainable Building Council

BUSINESS MODEL and FINANCE The government initiated the project to create one of the largest urban expansions in Europe. It aims to create 10,500 apartments for 28,000 residences by 2028. The first phase provides 2,845 homes for 6,000 residents, of which, parcel D13 is specifically reserved for co-housing. The government assigned D13 into five land plots and called for submissions from five groups, it selected submissions based on criteria including sustainability, architecture, economics and ecology. In 2013, there are five groups getting involved in the development: Jaspen, Lisa, B.R.O.T, Seestern Aspern, Seeparq. All of the projects satisfy the public housing criteria from Vienna and hence receive some form of subsidy. Most groups followed the framework named ‘WBV-GPA project-developer’ model, this model allows residents to

purchase equity stake or get subsidized from public housing program from local government. Members can make decision on their own buildings including their private apartment and the communal spaces and programming for operation and maintenance. § Lisa group has one of the most standardize financial structure. Lisa is a legal cooperative who sell shares to potential residents, they buy share from Lisa and also pay rent. Initially, resident pays €595/sqm to secure an apartment, this is equivalent to 25% of land and construction costs. In addition, residents pay rent at €9.15/sqm to cover service charges. § B.R.O.T: it is formed from a group of Christians that have worked together to build other projects with similar model. The group coordinated the design and controlled the building process. Future residents also had involved in designing the floorplan and communal spaces. § Seestern Aspern: The group worked with a non-profit organization who plays a role as a developer. The group rented the whole building and sublet it to future residents. Part of the rent will be used to pay off the developer’s loan and the building will belong to Seestern Aspern group after 30 years. § Seeparq: Three bedrooms apartment is from €257,000. Residents pay for the apartment and this is used towards mortgage. DESIGN Each group has their own design type. § Jaspen group: construction began in July 2013 and finished in September 2014. The building is a low energy building generation, it has five floors with 19 apartments. It has a community hub with seating for 60 people, a large kitchen connected to a shared garden where the community grows their own urban farm foods. They also organize social and cultural events that promote sustainable lifestyle including cycling, gardening, cooking. In the long term, the community wants to support small emerging businesses that serve the communities. The building has no car parking, it provides bike storage with e-bike charging stations open for the whole neighborhood. § Lisa group: a mixed-use building including 59 apartments and workspace. The building includes common spaces, spa, workshop, music room, shared kitchen, bicycle storage room, children’s play room. Apartment floorplan is flexible between 34-52 sqm, all come with private balcony. There are also commercial spaces on the ground floor. § B.R.O.T group: The project is located on a 1,690 sqm plot, the building is 800 sqm with a GFA of 4,800 sqm. The project has built 40 apartments (27-150 sqm/each) accommodating 108 people. It has 800 sqm shared space, including large common room with kitchen, meditation room, spa, exercise room, two garages, two therapy rooms, a music rehearsal room. It has 300 sqm green roof and 480 sqm communal spaces. The group also worked with a local agency to provide seven housing units for homeless people. § Seestern Aspern: There are 28 home units, the majority is for permanent resident, some units are for short term rental. Shared facilities include 175sqm co-working space, 280 sqm space allocated for communal kitchen and living area. Other facilities include children’s playground, open terrace, sauna, a rooftop meditation garden, laundry room, private storage units in the basement (a large bike room and multi-purpose events room). There are artists volunteers who will finish the interior design of the communal areas. Residents pay €350/sqm to join the community, and then pay a monthly rent of €9.07/sqm, plus a membership fee of €20/month and a single premium of €3,000 towards shared facilities. § Seeparg: Residents can design their own spaces. In the building, there are offices spaces. Full amenities including sauna, library room, rooftop, apartment for guests, medical office, communal kitchen, bbq area, shared basement for foods growth, bicycle, workshop and event spaces, swimming pond, bar and restaurants. SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES Buildings at Aspern Seestadt must pass through the Total Quality Building Assessment of the Austrian Sustainable Building Council with a minimum score of 750/1,000. Besides criteria such as cost effectiveness, furnishings and appointments, health and comfort, there are also factors such as energy, utility installations, building materials and resource efficiency. Many buildings have wood and timber materials, or innovative design such as the living

garden building with green spiral balconies designed for climbing plants, the building is a green-house for urban farming. The site gained many support from local government. For instance, the government provides neighborhood management program to foster local events. The urban mobility lab is supported by the Austrian Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology under its Future Mobility programme to integrate local residents and businesses. The city has its Mobility Fund to fund projects such as SeestadtFLOTTE bike allowing e-bike rental system. DPD hub to store parcel and deliver to home by electric bike MIXED USE INITIATIVES One of the outstanding aspect of the project is the enhancement of other uses, especially the utilization of office spaces to attract leading companies in technologies. Inside the Vienna Business Agency, for instance, there is a Aspern Smart City Research formed by Siemens, Wien Energie, Wiener Netze, Vienna Business Agency and wien 3420. The center researches smart building and smart grids to optimize urban energy production and consumption for future applications in the entire city. It also attracted Hoerbiger, worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leading company in automation and drive technology. There are 120 companies committed to the site as well. TU Vienna is the major hub for Industry 4.0 pilot plan, it aims to enhance the manufacturing system, especially products and processes by utilizing applied research in technologies. Other initiatives including automated bus system to be operated in 2019 and the Atos digital hubs. HoHo Wien It has world tallest timber, it provides spaces for health, beauty, wellness therapy; there are coworking office spaces for start-up with natural design and communal spaces for interaction, it also provides excellent transport link. Each surrounding plot is developed by a developer, it provides cluster office suites, multigenerational housing at affordable price, housing for seniors. The ultimate idea is to provide a destination where people work, live and play. Altogether, it makes the site a vibrant place to be.

APPENDIX 4 | SWITZERLAND KALKBREITE, ZURICH

Year of Operation Total cost Developer, Financial Providers

Mid 2014 (planning period: 2007-2012, construction: 2012-2014) £11.8 Million in 2014 The Kalkbreite Coop

Location

Kalkbreitestrasse 2, 8003 Zürich, Switzerland

Land Ownership

The community forms a cooperative Verein Kalkbreite (VK), VK purchased the site at an open bidding auction at a 13 months option. It finally purchased the site at a price €2.52 million after gain permitting approval. Land: 0.6 ha § Residential area: 7,400 sqm. Standard apartment: 97 apartments, 28-215 sqm/unit, 30 cluster units § Commercial areas: 5,000 sqm (retail: 816 sqm, restaurants and foods: 489 sqm, health facilities: 611 sqm, offices: 1,617 sqm, cinema: 654 sqm, nursery: 312 sqm, guest house, bed and breakfast: 258 sqm) § The rest is for shared communal spaces. 97 owner occupied units, 80% units provide below market rent, 11 units are social housing, 30 clustered room (222-412 sqm/cluster) 250 residents of diverse income, ethnicity and age § Guest rooms, fitness, salon, laundry room, music room (350 sq m), rooftop terrace, youth room, multipurpose rooms, library, public courtyard, shared garden and greenhouse, children’s playground

Land Area/ Land Use

Apartment Type Residents Facilities

Pricing Sustainability practices

£8.40-£14.20/sqm/month. Build bare shell Designed to reduce wasted spaces. Maximize the use of commercial spaces.

BUSINESS MODEL In 2006, Verein Kalkbreite (VK) partnered with many stakeholders including City of Zurich, local transportation corporation, and other associations such as Karthago, Dreieck. In 2007, VK formed a housing cooperative to build the project. The cooperative rented from the city owned land, the lease is valid until 2070. VK contributed 6% of the equity and it applied for construction loan from a wide range of bank and financial institutions. The city council also granted £2.2 millions for VK to run feasibility study. In exchange, the city council can manage VK financial account. Future residents can place CFH1,000 to register as member of the cooperative. When a space is available, the future residents pay for shares in the coop according to the unit size they take and pay for rent, rents are at the

construction costs amortized for 60 years, plus maintenance and operation fees. A 100 sqm unit costs an equity payment of £17,000 and about £1,250 per month. The residents can move out when they want and transfer their lease to another future resident. The rent is used to repay the bank loan. Once it is fully paid the rent can reduce further. 20% of the units are catered to high income residents, 11% catered to lower income residents. §

The co-operative owns the units. If a resident move in, they pay for the share of the unit they use and the share of communal spaces. The payment is deposited in an account and generate a small interest rate. When the resident moves out, they gain the initial capital back including interest (Stephanie, Z. 2016).

DESIGN | MIXED USE INITIATIVES The site has designed various uses to support the financial aspect of the homes. The ground floor is a 3,050 sqm tram interchange station. The first floor are retail spaces for sale and for lease, there are various restaurants, bars and café. There is a cinema with five multiplexes, it shows movies made locally, Hollywood movies, children movies. There are ten sale shops leased to boutique retailers in fashion, foods and furniture stores. From the mezzanine to the second floor, there are small offices, studios, medical offices. Additionally, there are seven flexi rooms with size ranged from 14-45 sqm, they have chair and tables and are suitable for meetings, seminars, club gathering and yoga lessons. The building also has a 11 guest rooms equipped with double bed and shower at affordable price. The communal area is in the third level with an extended communal garden, it includes dining room, day care, reception space, communal kitchen, meeting and training rooms. A mixture between apartment and clustered apartments. SUSTAINABILITY The building is built with the Swiss construction standard, the Minergie-P-Eco. The building has installed solar panels to generate a large portion of its electricity, it has groundwater pump for hot water. Kalkbreite also optimized all of the used spaces to ensure a reduction of wasted spaces. It has 2,500 sqm green courtyard spaces which is partially opened for public use, there are areas reserved for planting and bee protection. The residents also have a private 1,500 sqm rooftop garden which they plant foods, flowers and herbs.

APPENDIX 5 | DENMARK TRUDESLUND, COPENHAGEN

Year of Operation Location /Accessibility

1980s 3460 Birkerød, Denmark, the site is approximately 25 minutes away from the city centre by driving

Land Ownership Apartment Type

Residents have full land ownership 33 terraced houses, size from 90-140 sqm, town home, single family home, stacked flats. 13 units/acre. 90 residents from various age group. US$91,000 to US$117,600 in 1980 dollar. The price includes the apartment price and a share in the common house.

Residents Pricing BUSINESS MODEL

The founders purchased a land plot and rezoned it into a high-density housing site. The founders then formed a housing association to develop the project. The residents were obligated to be a member of the housing association, they purchased their own house and a share of the common house. The majority of the residents in 2010 is the same as they were in 1980s (Jon Lang, 2017). Current residents can sale their home on open market space. However, the new residents must abide to the communal activities of the existing community. Potential purchasers are requested to join the community dinners, two common meetings, and workday to ensure they can understand the community life offered from Trudeslund. Three decades after moving in, the home price is about four times when they first move in (Jon Lang, 2017). DESIGN Common house includes a ballroom, dining room, kitchen, TV, fireplace and children section, laundry room, workshop, bicycle storage room, lounge room with sitting place for reading and playing games or drawing, TV lounge with a bar, fireplace with billiards and table football, youth room in the basement for young people to socialize. There is a natural playground with green spaces for campfire and communal parking space. OPERATION Commitment to the community is abide to the association’s articles. All adults and children help to cook, daily meal is the outstanding feature in the community. Adults are expected to cook once per month. Meals are served from €3-4/meal (half price for children). The residents can take part in many activities during the year including festivals, Christmas and New Year party, cycling, cinema tour, wine tasting, game nights, Wednesday yoga, or Friday cafes. The community is divided into 16 working groups including events, outdoor group, laundry group, kitchen group, common house, basement group, big children group, info group and so forth, they all take part to run the maintenance work. Each member belongs to at least one group.

APPENDIX 6 | FINLAND CASA MALTA, HELSINKI

Year of Operation Total cost Location and Accessibility Land Ownership Land area/ Land use

Apartment type Residents Facilities Pricing Sustainability practices

2014 (planning period: 2007-2012, construction: 2012-2014) £11.8 Million in 2014 Jatkasari, Helsinki, Finland. It is a new upcoming area in the city which is wellconnected to the city centre, the metro line is 300 metres from the building. There is also a bike lane connected to the main railway station to the city centre. The cooperation rented the land plot from city of Helsinki. o Land: N/A, GFA: 8,500 sqm o Standard flat: sq m (54-290 sqm/flat), Cluster unit 1,905 sq m o Commercial units: 100 sq m o Communal spaces: 550 sqm, underground parking for 24 cars 420 sqm, option spaces: 384 sqm 61 family units on nine storeys building studios (<40 sqm/unit), two storey apartments (150 sqm/unit) Residents of diverse income and age, income, ethnicity and age. Majority units are for middle income residents, 11% affordable units, 20% units are for upper income level. guest rooms, fitness, salon, laundry room, multipurpose hall (350 sq m), rooftop terrace, sauna rooms, workshop spaces, Construction cost: €4,300/sqm Sale: €2,100/sqm, bare shell apartments, residents do their own fit out. Cost is three times less than comparables in the area. quadruple windows and thick insulation, geothermal heat pump system, hot water and supplementary winter heating o o

BUSINESS MODEL The lead community is a group of friends who got together and formed a housing association named: ‘Home in the City’’, they elected a management board and members are divided into several groups work on different initiatives from construction, kitchen, greenery, community activities and aesthetic group. Issues are managed from the sub-groups based on consensus basis. If issues cannot be resolved, the group votes on a two thirds majority.

The group contacted the Real Estate Department in Helsinki to acquire a plot of land. The cooperation rented the land from the city with a condition that the resale price will be regulated in the next 30 years. The flat owners are not allowed to resale their flats at market price. They utilized television talk show to recruit potential purchasers. They also contacted with other stakeholders to obtain other grants such as the Finnish Danish Cultural Fund to go to Copenhagen and Sweden to learn about the housing projects there. The housing association is taking full charge of the development. To manage all activities, they raise reservation fund of â&#x201A;Ź30/sqm from members and use the fee towards architecture package and project management. DESIGN The main community function takes place on the ground floor level. The multipurpose hall is 140 sqm has a library, TV room and a large dining hall with fully equipped communal kitchen with restaurant standard. The multipurpose hall can be used for private events or common parties such as cultural activities, movie nights, Other common rooms have workshop spaces for textile, carpentry.

On the top floors are three sauna units. It also has a small den, small club room for meeting, roof garden and open-air terraces. Underground parking will be sold or leased separately, its costs are not included in the price of the apartments. There will be shops to repair bicycle and charging stations for electric bicycle.

OPERATION The sauna usage is on a first come, first served basis. sauna unit for family, the usage is operated on a negotiate schedule, the other two units, one operates for men, one for women. Community get involved in the maintenance of common spaces. Shared dinner is set and members are required to participate in taking turn to make it. Inhabitantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Agreement signed by all adults moving to the building. They can issue sanctions to remove members who do not commit with the community rules.

APPENDIX 7 | SPAIN LA BORDA, BARCELONA Building overview

Year of Operation Developer, Financial Resources Location Land Ownership Surrounding amenities Land use Apartment type Residents Facilities Pricing

Under-construction, expected opening in Summer 2018 La Borda cooperative La Col Sants The cooperative rent public land from the municipality of Barcelona for 75 years Can Battlo cultural centre Built surface is used to be industrial facilities. 23 units over a six storey building Millennials, Family, Seniors, Migrants One apartment to share facilities like laundry, big kitchen, terrace, large dining room, guests room for private party The residents pay €17,000 initial investment per unit, then paying rent euro 300 to euro 600 per month. Later, the rent can be reduced when debt is decreased.

LEGAL STRUCTURE and FINANCE The future residents formed a non-profit co-op, it rented the land for 75 years from Barcelona’s municipality government, they have to pay land rental rate to the government and tax. The final agreement has stated that the cooperative pay an annual fee of €3,600 for the government, it is equivalent to €270,000 for 75 years. There is no land ownership. The residents are committed to purchase a share in the cooperative, the price of right is determined in accordance to the size of the dwelling. If they want to leave the community, they will get the invested capital back and the community find another person to replace them. The price of the share is determined by the co-op taken into account the maintenance and improvement costs. The right of use can also be transferred to the heirs. The co-op land price is low, that’s why the cost is low, the project only cots €2.7 million. In terms of funding, 29% of the budget is paid by the members of the co-op bank’s Coop57. Guarantors for the loans are the residents and their families. La Borda also received €825,000 in loan from friends and families. The 29% budget is paid by the residents, and they also pay rent from €300-€600. The rest is raised through micro lending campaign, the campaign raised crowd funding allowing small contribution from individuals in Europe, the amount can be as small as hundred euros with the payback period from 10 to 15 years.

For an apartment of 70sqm plus the use of common spaces, the entry fee is approximately €17,000 and monthly fee should not exceed €450/month. This fee is lower than the affordable housing fee in Barcelona which is €688/month in Barcelona in 2014. DESIGN The entire building is made from wood, except from the floor. This helps to promote the sustainable usage of the building, it also reduced cost and fasten construction time. The apartment size is designed small to maximize common spaces. They have shared facilities including laundry room, big kitchen, terrace for BBQ, large dining room, guest rooms and event spaces. Communal spaces are shared with the residents and some facilities publicly opened for the neighborhood. The design also eliminated underground parking spaces and replace it by a large bike parking space. COMMUNITY SUPPORT La Borda project is entirely supported by prospective residents and local volunteer with technical expertise to design and develop the project, negotiate the land acquisition with local government, or framing the financial structure for the development. The community is divided into different groups who manage different project aspects including architecture, community life, communication; the groups meet through regular assembly and make decisions on the project. The coop also hired professional consultants with a priority allocated for the residents belong to the coop or volunteer who participated in the program. APPENDIX 08 | UK ST CLEMENTS, LONDON Building overview

Year of Operation Total cost Developer, Financial Resources Location Land Ownership Surrounding amenities Land use Residents Pricing

Under-construction, expected opening in Summer 2018 £40 million investment from Linden Homes Linden Homes-Galliford Try, Peabody, East London Community Land Trust (London CLT) Tower of Hamlet, London, UK. It is 45 minutes by public transit to the city centre The land is owned by the Mayor of London, freehold is transferred to a community foundation which will manage the site development 4.63 acre developing into 252 housing units, 58 units are affordable rental apartments, 23 units are for the East London Community Trust Millennials, Family, Seniors, Migrants For the 23 units, price ranged from (1 bedroom)- £265,000 (3 bedrooms)

INNOVATIVE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE The land is released from a major housing innovations scheme to release surplus land owned by Major of London. The housing scheme purpose is to manage 670 ha of public land to create affordable housing and jobs in the city. The St Clements development process is as follow: § The developer obtained commercial loan to build 23 affordable housing units which is sold to London CLT as a take-out guarantor. Upon completion, London CLT (an urban community trust) will immediately sell all units to a group of pre-selected home owners. The home owner is selected based on housing needs, connection to the local community, the ability to secure mortgage and the commitment to support the communities through London CLT. Each home owner raises their own mortgage with support from London CLT. The sale cost is linked to the local median income, not market value, current sale price is half the market value. Resale price is also linked to median income of local neighborhood, not market value. The development loss is subsidized by the sale of the remaining 178 units which is sold at market value. Linden Homes will recruit 20% of local workers to work on the site, source at least 20% of materials from local suppliers, and offering apprenticeship for young people in the area. London CLT also got funding from other financial resources to fund projects which are community lead or projects that create positive environmental impact. For instance, they partnered with Ecology financial institution to provide mortgage for St Clements scheme. The 23 housing units have design lead by community.

LILAC, LEEDS Building overview

Year of Operation Total cost Developer, Financial Resources Location Land Ownership Land use Apartment type Residents Pricing

2014 (planning: 2004-2012) £2.95 million Triodos: £2.1 million, HCA grant: £420k, Homeowners: £500k Suburban of Leeds, UK Land cost £200,000 1,692 sqm Private homes of modest size, common house for communal activities & shared infrastructure. 34 people and 13 children, Millennials, Family, Seniors Average £140,000/unit

INNOVATIVE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE The development adopted a financial structure called Mutual Home Ownership Society (MHOS). The MHOS built the property via a long-term mortgage provided by Triodos. Triodos is the main financial provider to provide ÂŁ1.5 million over 21 years at a rate of 4.9%. Apart from Triodos, the MHOS obtained 10% deposits from house owners, loan from friends and families, and funding from the Energy and Climate Change grant from HCA to experience the building by strawbale. All residents must be a member of the cooperative to receive mortgage, they have a 21 years leasehold on the project. Each resident pays 35% of their monthly net income to the co-op, the co-op then uses the money to pay off mortgage from Triodos. INNOVATIVE DESIGN It is built from ModCell, a locally sourced straw bale and timber using super-insulated, prefabricated wall panels. In contrast to a normal built home which release 50 tonnes of CO2, a straw bale home can store 12.3 tonnes of CO2. Each house has solar roof, the common house also has one big solar roof, they generate more energy than needed. Each property has Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery System which enables indoor air quality to be high without opening the windows. There are many green spaces around with allocated lot, pond, shared garden, childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s play area. The communal house has kitchen, laundry facilities, meeting spaces, office and guest room, cycle storage space, shared workshop and tool room. Rain water is harvesting into a central pond which is used for landscaping. OPERATION All members participate in one of the nine management teams that run the site and organize social events with the neighborhood, they also offer training to emerging projects that are similar to Lilac. Social events include film nights, workshops, meals and gathering events. The common house is also used for public events in the neighborhood. Especially, the foods collected in the garden are provided to local suppliers. They have frequent programming to learn about growing foods. They also facilitate recycling program on site. The members use any excess income from monthly payment to reserve in a fund. This fund is utilized in the events that member lose job, or to finance the gap if a high earner leaves the project and replaced by a lowincome earner.

CASE STUDY IN CANADA

APPENDIX 9 | QUEBEC COHABITAT, QUEBEC Building Overview

Operation Developer Location Surrounding Amenities

Land Ownership/ Land Use Apartment Type

Residents Facilities

Pricing

2013. It took 10 years planning. Cohabitat Québec Co-ownership Union 1650 rue Louis-Jetté, Saint-Sacrement district, it is approximately 30 minutes from city center Several services are accessible: library, grocer, pharmacy, church, convenience store, banking services, playpen, sports center, schools and university. The land is 10,854 sqm, it is bought by the founding members. Built surface: 2,100 sqm. Parking and playground: 2,500 sqm. Green area: 6,500 sqm 42 units in five buildings plus indoor and outdoor common areas. Townhouses and condos types: § 4 townhouses of 4 bedrooms § 6 townhouses of 3 bedrooms § 10 condos of 3 bedrooms § 16 condos of 2 bedrooms § 6 condos of 1 bedroom About 100 people with different age group and income The community house has an industrial kitchen, a dining room that can seat 100 people, a multipurpose room, two guest suites, and laundry facilities. Large landscaped lot for children playground, a vegetable garden and a large terrace. Cohabitat Quebec also has a common house with an equipped kitchen such as a restaurant, a workshop for handymen, game room, guest rooms and a pantry that serves as a grocery store. Quebec condominium prices range from CAD$230,000 to CAD$420,000, which corresponds to the market price for new equivalent condos.

Sustainability Practices Source. La Presse, 2014. Projets Verts, 2014.

BUSINESS MODEL Cohabitat Québec (CQ) chose the cooperative structure to build the first cohousing project in Quebec. CQ is managed by a board of directors composed of six elected people comes from different professions. The Board and the General Assembly shall elect directors for a two-year term. When on term, these directors meet several times a year to present CQ’s activities to members and setting the direction for the coop. Cohabitat Québec cost $11 million to build and took 10 years of planning before operation in 2013. Units are not subsidized and resale prices are at market rates. CMHC provided seed funding to complete the business plan and the preliminary design. Caisse Solidaire Desjardins offered CAD$7.1 million for the construction; Filactio, a partner of Caisse, offered CAD$1.5 million (Caisse Solidare, 2013). The rest is funded by the residents. The development is managed by the cooperative, it manages from design, construction to operation. Decision is made through assembly. Cohabitat’s co-op purchased their land and manage the building process themselves, they still had to face a four-year court to be recognized as owner-builders rather than for-profit developer as stated under the provincial building code (La Presse, 2014). In addition to the unit costs from CAD$230,000 to CAD$420,000, the residents are requested to pay CAD$100CAD$200 per month, this charge covers all expenses including utilities, internet, insurance and maintenance fund (La Presse, 2014). DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVING The development created smaller units to encourage interaction between neighbors. A community house provides space for social activities. Smaller units in combination with other factors such as reduced parking and building materials has certified CQ’s buildings with LEED platinum label. The developments density is 57.5 dwellings per hectare, the development has preserved the majority of trees in the area; mature oaks preserved is an important element of the project's signature, the central courtyard and all the buildings have been built around it (Projets Verts, 2014). Surface parking is reduced to 22 spaces, the land is allocated for building communal areas or green areas, it also reduced costs of building underground parking plot (Projets Verts, 2014). There are also charging stations for electric vehicles. Regarding shared facilities, a large common area served as a playground and ice rink in winter, other facilities include a terrace, a kitchen garden, multipurpose room, workshops, children’s playground, game room and guest room. Lightweight, high albedo materials were used for sidewalks, patios and driveways. The framing panels were all wood, the attic was insulated with cellulose, 100% recycled material; cabinets are made of 100% recycled wood composite (Cohabitat, 2014). The development has special design on heat control system, the solar passive system heated the main living areas with the sun of early afternoon. They also installed acoustic and thermal insulation for the ground floor to capture and restore the heat of the sun. There is also underground basin to collect rainwater, the housing units are also equipped with water saving appliances (Projets Verts, 2014). COMMUNITY PROGRAM At Cohabitat, members volunteer at least nine hours a month to manage issues like maintenance or communications, or participate in work teams to keep common areas tidy and co-ordinate community meals (Cohabitat, 2014). Individuals must participate in training sessions on consensual decision-making, communication, and conflict resolution before becoming a member of a management committee.

APPENDIX 10 | BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER COHOUSING, VANCOUVER Building overview

Operation

2016

Total cost

approximately $15 million

Developer

Vancouver CoHousing / Cedar Cottage Housing Association

Location

1729-1735 East 33rd Avenue near Argyle Street,

Land Ownership Project distribution Apartment type

2,749 sqm

Residents Facilities

60 people. Mixed ethnicity, income and age. § Share spaces: one 6,510 sqm common house in the backyard of the complex, they have kitchen and dining room in the common building, a yoga studio, office space, children’s playground, laundry room, craft room, youth room, workshop, bike room, storage room, central courtyard, rooftop deck, community garden, and two guest rooms for visitors § Private spaces: each home has a full kitchen, a dining area, living room, bedrooms and bathrooms. Each has its own washer and dryer for private laundry facilities, and option to use the common laundry facilities. § Elevator, wheelchair accessibility, one level underground parking

Pricing Sustainability practices

Housing cost: The price is from $285,000-$800,000 LEED Gold Certification.

31 apartments, studios to three bedrooms. Each unit has its own small yard or balcony. There are four separate buildings on site.

Source: Vancouver Courier, 2016, City of Vancouver, 2013, Globe and Mail, 2017 BUSINESS MODEL The group founders purchased the land plot, formed a housing association and applied for the site rezoning. It took four years for the group to pass through the rezoning process, plan the building and complete construction. The rezoning process allows a co-housing complex to be built on a plot of three properties. They use volunteers to work on the rezoning works. There are two rental units as a requirement from City of Vancouver, one bedroom goes for $1,500 per month, three bedroom goes for $2,900 per month (Vancouver Courier, 2016). It was undisclosed how the group raise finance; however, the pre-sale was stated almost sold out in 2014, there are only three remaining units in place (Globe and Mail, 2017). The group also claimed that the housing

association will be dissolved when the project enters operation. The community will form a typical strata agreement to manage the complex, every household is expected to get involved in making decision. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION During construction, 51 percent of all material was recycled, wood, cardboard, paper, metal, styrofoam, soft and rigid plastics, beverage containers, all were separated. Lunch leftovers were composted off-site and even all the old concrete foundation material ended up in the harbor as fill for the new cruise ship terminal. The windows installation is thick to reduce noise (BapAcoustic, 2018) OPERATION They used consensus in decision making, there are various small teams hosting different aspects of management. They have teams work on maintenance, finance, landscaping, cleaning, meals, kid’s room. Residents still hold regular meal sharing together, it is typically four meals per week, most meals have more than 35 people attending. On average, $5 per person and $2.5 for kids (Vancouver Courier, 2018). The community holds monthly meetings to update on any management issues. They also plan community programs including sharing meals, bike maintenance workshop, barbecue. They also invite residents in the neighbourhood to join the complex on social meals and weekend workshops (Vancouver Courier, 2018). The community also holds regular tour and charge on site visit, the reserve fund is allocated for the maintenance of shared spaces (Vancouvercohousing, 2018) CRANBERRY COMMONS COHOUSING, BURNABY Building overview

Operation

2001

Total costs

$5.3 million

Developer Location Land Ownership Apartment type Residents Facilities

Pricing Sustainability practices

4272 Albert St, Burnaby, BC V5C 2E8. It is 30 minutes to downtown Vancouver by bus 0.16 ha, GFA: 2,480 sqm. Land cost is $1.23 million 22 units of condominium townhouse and apartment units, 26-149 sqm/unit Mixed ethnicity, income and age. § Share spaces: 220 sqm common house, lounge, children’s playroom, shared kitchen, vegetable garden, recycling facilities, outdoor dining space, rooftop with sauna, guestroom, meeting room, laundry room, shared office § 38 underground parking spaces $130,000-$375,000 Solar panels, in-floor radiant heat, high energy efficiency gas boiler, water efficiency system, recycled wood materials Source: CMHC, 2004

BUSINESS MODEL Total development cost was $5.3 million of which land cost was $1.23 million; the future residents contributed 25% equity and the rest is funded by a mortgage from North Shore Credit Union (CMHC,

2004). Project encountered cost overrun of $15,000 per unit due to complexity, the residents have to pay this extra amount. There were challenges such as regulations on parking spaces. Despite the residents insisted to reduce the usage of parking spaces, the city still requires the standard 38 parking spaces for 22 housing units. This in addition with the requirements about fire safety had added an increase cost to the project. The community also undergone many negotiations with city council to increase density and set back variance to allow more shared spaces and diverse unit types (CMHC, 2004). Price is comparable to the other units in the area. CASE STUDY IN THE USA | CO-HOUSING

APPENDIX 11 | WASHINGTON VILLAGE Building overview

Developer, Architect, Contractors Location Surrounding amenities Apartment type

Residents Facilities

Wonderland Hill Development, Sopher Sparn Architects, LLC, Pel-Ona Architects & Urbanists, Michael Artino 1215 Cedar Ave, Boulder CO 80304 15-minute walk, 5-minutes biking, 7 minutes by bus, or 5-minute drive Broadway shopping center, North Boulder recreational center, Medical center, Middle school, High school, Downtown, Farmer market, Public library, Bike Lanes/Paths/Open Space Trails 24 homes 12 flats (1,100 SF-1,480 SF) 2 commercial units (1,250 SF-1,350 SF) zoned for light industrial Target permanent owner occupiers Share: guest suites with private bath, 3 communal lounges, fully equipped woodshop/bike repair shop, art studio, meditation place, library, meeting space with TV for movie nights, 2 laundry room, large group kitchen, large patio with outdoor cooking spaces, family sized guest suite with bath, multipurpose room. Elevator, wheelchair accessibility Private: Each home has a full kitchen, including stove and dishwasher, a dining area, living room, and one or more bedrooms and bathrooms. Every home has its own washer and dryer hookups for private laundry facilities, but you also have the option to use the common laundry facilities. You can also reserve the community kitchen and dining room for private events that you host.

Services

Building and room clean bi-weekly

Pricing

Sustainability practices

24/7 24/7 Community concierge All in one bill (rent, bills, council tax, wifi, cleaning, gym) Small deposit ÂŁ500 The price of every unit includes a finish budget that covers a standard level of finish, with some opportunity to choose patterns and colors, and a standard cabinet package, plumbing fixtures, lighting budget, and appliance package. You may choose to upgrade finishes for additional cost LEED Silver Certification (environmentally sound building practices in use, but also the advantages of being in a location that makes it easy to walk, bike, or take public transportation to get to local businesses and services) Energy efficient and noise reduction windows. Geothermal heating systems have been incorporated into many of the buildings, and several homes are also wired for solar panels to be installed. Sources: Washingtonvillage, 2018.

BUSINESS MODEL The project is structured as condominium association and ownership is legally recognized under the local condominium act. Residents own their own units plus undivided share of all common areas within the property. Owner can sell their units at any point in time. The developer has a waiting list of potential buyers. When a member needs to sell, there will be a group of interested buyers to work with. They canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t run the space as an AirBnB. The community is also working to define a Rental Agreement, which will establish community expectations regarding how often and how long units can be rented, and possibly set limits regarding the number of units that can be rented at any given time. FINANCING, TAX & FEES You would be responsible for your own property taxes, and for paying monthly HOA assessments, which covers such things as the association's master insurance policy premiums, property management, grounds maintenance, maintaining the common spaces, and building a reserve funds account for periodic major expenses, such as exterior painting and roof replacement, when needed. Units in multi-family buildings may also have an additional assessment for shared building operating expenses. owner is responsible for paying the property tax on their unit to Boulder County based on the assessed value of your property. The developer can provide an estimate of property taxes for each unit. The HOA does not have any property tax obligation.

CASE STUDY IN THE USA | AFFORDABLE HOUSING

APPENDIX 12 | VIA VERDE, NEW YORK Building overview

Developer, Investor Land and location

Phipps Houses, Jonathan Rose Companies 1.5 acres at 700 Brook Ave, Bronx, NY 10455, USA

Neighbourhood

Low income neighborhood, working class residents with income less than $35,000/year 222 units, single and two-level apartments, two-level townhouses. Rental and owner occupier units are separated, they all have access to all communal facilities Mixed income From $78,894 for 1-bedroom to $192,750 for 3-bedroom units Healthy living: urban farm, bike/walk lifestyle, fitness

Apartment type

Residents Pricing Sustainability practices BUSINESS MODEL and FINANCE

The development is enacted by City of New York and developed by a joint venture between Phipps Houses and Jonanthan Rose Companies. Phipps Houses is a well-established non-profit developer, they developed more than 11,000 affordable housing units for the residents of New York (ULI, 2012). Jonathan Rose Companies also has distinguished track record in developments that enhance growth of urban communities (ULI, 2012). Other architects and landscape architects involved also have extensive experiences in adopting innovative and sustainable design concepts. City of New York owned the site and wanted to develop it to revitalize the neighborhood. They called for entry competition from developers in the area. When the winning team is defined, the city authority formed special teams to manage the approval process for the project, zoning exceptions are made to facilitate the development. The land is donated to the development at $1 by the city of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). The development aims to provide 151 affordable housing units to households earning 40%-60% of the median income in the area. The rental units have 30 years lease term, after which the owner can adjust the sale price. The 71 co-op housing units are for households earning 70%-100% of the area median income, the owners can sell anytime, but they must sale to income qualified buyers. The development requires $32 million to develop 71 co-op housing units, these units target middle income households. The developer contributed $1.675 million in equity and an additional $1.5 million in the form of a deferred developer fee, the latter fee is returned to the developer when permanent financing is secured (ULI, 2012). Other financial resources are funded by taxable bonds from New York City Housing Development

Corporation (HDC), the bond is floated during construction with a JP Morgan’s line of credit. Further finance is provided by HDC, HPD, Bronx’s borough, New York City Council, NY Affordable Housing Corporation, NYSERDA and $3.1 million bridge financing provided by Calvert Foundation (ULI, 2012). An additional of $66.6 million is required for the development of 151 rental units for low income households. The developer contributed $1 million in equity at construction, plus $4.76 million equity as deferred development fee, which will be returned to the developer when permanent financing is secured (ULI, 2012). Other funding is from the taxable bond from HDC, the bond is also floated during construction with a JP Morgan’s line of credit, other resources are from HDC, HPD, NYSERDA and local government (ULI, 2012). DESIGN Buildings are arranged to layout the transition from three storeys to twenty stories, the yellow highlight area is residential area, the blue is retail plaza (Figure 1). Green roof top is also reserved on all high rise and low-rise buildings and into the courtyard, an outdoor amphitheater is also in the courtyard. Green spaces retain rain water and combat heat, the garden also provides foods. Roof gardens include green trees on the third floor, fruit trees on the fourth floor, vegetable gardens on the fifth floor and an extensive landscape area for outdoor exercise and social events on the seventh floor (ULI, 2012). A storm water reclamation system is utilized to store water for irrigation. Facades made of prefabricated colourful panels. The prefabricated rain screen is also insulated, it is locally made on Long Island. Windows and balconies are all prefabricated as well, allowing wide open space for natural sunlight, better ventilation and air quality (ULI, 2012). Over 20% of the construction materials are made of recycle resources and locally sourced and 80% of construction waste is recycled (ULI, 2012). All materials have low or no-VOC substance and natural ventilation design help improve air quality. There is also a 5,500 sf medical center with programs to prevent and manage chronic conditions. Solar panel is also utilized, it stored enough energy to provide lighting for common areas. Motion sensors in stairways and corridors monitor electricity usage. All units have efficient lighting and water usage system. Via Verde provides 30% exceed energy compared with a standard building. OPERATION The property manager commits to aspire the residents on a green living lifestyle through brochure distribution, suggestions on nutrition, exercise and community activities; they maintain 24/7 communication with the residents (ULI, 2012). The property manager also collaborates with a non-profit organisation excelled in urban farming named Grow NYC to train residents to take care of the garden. Other events include movie nights. Services including dry cleaning. The project is highly successful with all units absorbed in seven months (ULI, 2012).

APPENDIX 13| PASEO VERDE, PHILADELPHIA Building overview

Developer, Investor Land and location Neighbourhood Apartment type

APM, Jonathan Rose Companies, WRT 1950 N 9th St, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA 120 rental apartments on 219,933 sf, one to three bedrooms 67 owner occupier apartments on 139,482 sf, one to two bedrooms Source: ULI, 2012

BUSINESS MODEL and FINANCE Jonathan Rose Companies (Rose) and APM made a joint venture to develop the project. APM is a non-profit organisation based in Philadelphia, it focuses on communities and economic developments in the county. During the development, APM worked with local council to gain land and public subsidies. Rose works on design, construction and structuring finance. APM partners with local organisations to gain feedback from local communities on seven aspects such as physical condition, leadership, wealth, health, economic development, arts, education and transit. APM’s RFP gained approval from local authority to rezone the site from an industrial site to a mixed use high density transit oriented development as they want to revitalize the low-income neighbourhood. The local council assigned the land for $1 to the developers. To fund 53 rental units for low income residents who earn between 20-60% of the area median income, the developers gained finance from different sources. The Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency allocated $4.9 million equity low income housing tax credit, the developers also gained $3.6 million grants from the city’s Housing Trust Fund and $520k from the affordable housing program of the Federal Home Loan Bank. Another $4.7 mortgage is secured at 2.8% interest rate in two years. To fund the second building, the developers obtained a construction loan of $9million at 4% interest rate and sever year term. They also gained $3 million loan from the Pennsylvania Green Energy Loan Fund with a seven years term at 3.5% interest rate. They also received $5.5 million grants from Philadelphia economic development and an additional fund of $1.5 million from the city’s Housing Trust Fund, $500k from the Department of Community and Economic Development and $487k federal budget. The project also is qualified for Philadelphia’s ten-year tax abatement. The project also received more than $700k from various organisations due to its green features.