The expected outcome of the essay is a structural overview of the obstacles and possibilities of implementing the cohousing model in Hungary and the European post socialist region. This overview could highlight the key challenges of the topic and it can be as a basis of the cohousing implementation framework.
co creation, cohousing adaptation, cooperative housing
This essay proposes to map and categorize the key challenges of implementing the cohousing model in CEE countries, like the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The method is to analyze and compare the experimental cohousing projects in Hungary and Poland. In Hungary, cohousing NGOs and initial grassroots groups are formed, while in Poland projects are under development and some pilot projects are being implemented. The analysis is around the characteristics of creation and the adaptation of the cohousing model. It tries to unravel the reasons for the success of the Polish case studies, as well as to collect their difficulties.
DOCONF/2021ǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀ 40 Facing Post-Socialist Urban Heritage
KEYWORDS
Annamária BABOS PhD Departmentstudent,of Urban Planning and Design Faculty of Architecture Budapest University of Technology and Economics anamaria.babos@gmail.com
Key Challenges of Implementing the Cohousing Model in CEE C ountries: C omparison Hungary and Poland
ABSTRACT
Nowadays the cohousing model is widely applied in different countries of Western Europe. The adaptation of this model is in its initial phase among the Central Eastern European countries (CEE) While this model is also capable of developing post socialist urban housing, on a small scale
cohousing,
The liveability of cities and the availability of affordable and sustainable urban housing is an unquestionably important challenge both at the moment and in the future. In recent years, possible solutions to the problems of urban liveability today are presented by social innovations, cultural changes, and alternative architectural and housing forms, all of which allow for our cities to be more sustainable, the citizens to be more satisfied with their life and urban housing to be increasingly sustainable and affordable.Theknown methods of the European contemporary cohousing model, such as co-creation, participatory design processes, and neighbourhood design, do not only enable the establishing group an affordable and sustainable housing option, but it also exerts a positive impact on the urban environment. It may contribute to establishing social and physical sustainability in urban areas, and create a healthy mix of common and private areas in a high-density urban setting as well. Cohousing and its shared characteristics are often applied with different models in Western European housing systems (La Fonda and Tsvetkova, 2017; Twardoch, 2017). In contrast with it, in the Central Eastern Europe (CEE) region the spread of the cohousing model is still in its initial phase, because of social attitude and ability, financial and legal circumstances. (Glatz and Komlósi, 2015).
Figure 1. CollAction Budapest initiative group: creating the common vision (Photo: Babos Annamária)
This paper tries to reveal the reasons why the adaptation of the cohousing model is not successful in the CEE countries. The research method is to analyze well known experimental cohousing projects from Poland and Hungary. In both countries, the cohousing creating process is inhibited, so the analyzed projects are not like the Western ones. There are similarities between the two countries, but a fundamental difference is that larger scale projects could be implemented in Poland. The research questions are the following: How is it possible to implement a large scale cohousing project in Poland? What factors helped this? How can the Hungarian and other CEE countries learn from this adaptation?
ǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀ DOCONF2021 / Budapest / http://doconf.architect.bme.hu/ 41
1.Introduction
3.The terminologies and cohousing creation model - 2000
The first problem is to create a group of people with the same and appropriate economic capacity and creditworthiness. Money is a significant obstacle to implementing these projects. The wealthiest part of the society could afford participation in developing a cohousing project. Furthermore in Poland, the legal framework of cooperative housing ownership is non-existent, nevertheless, a civil-law partnership agreement or agreement on a joint construction and ownership could be functional as a cooperative one. The scarcity of appropriate plots of landforms may also be a reason for the low popularity of cohousing. The offered plots are either too
Although cohousing model has not been fully adapted yet, there is a growing interest in cohousing in the following CEE countries, the Czech Republic (Bestakova 2015), Hungary (Babos et al. 2018), Poland (Twardoch 2017b), Serbia, Slovakia (id22: Institute for Creative Sustainability 2017) and Slovenia (Ogrin 2016). In these countries cohousing NGOs are formed, projects are under development, and some pilot projects, as experimental cohousing developments are being implemented. The adaptation of the co creation model and the implementation of the cohousing model in CEE countries are different as in Western Europe.
For the forms of communal living different terms are used by professions, collaborative housing has been adopted as an umbrella term of these housing forms (Czischke et al. 2020). In this paper, the following well-separable terms are used: (cohousing, housing cooperative, and social housing). The main differences between them are that cohousing describes the community aspects of communal living, the housing cooperative focuses on questions of legal ownership and affordability. This form determines the community through the sharing of ownership. Cohousing is a wider category, which can have initiatives based on private property too (Larsen 2019). In contrast to these two definitions, the focus of social housing is to support people in social need, such projects do not necessarily have community usage.
The methodologies for community participation in the Western European cohousing creation model (co creation) are well practiced and contribute to the success of the project (Tummers 2015). Future inhabitants can share different steps of the creation process. So varied levels of shared responsibility can be observed (Scotthanson and Scotthanson 2005), these can be divided into five different groups (Babos et al. 2020): Future inhabitants can take part in the common idea formulation (Fenster 1999), can have the control of design decisions through the participatory design process, and can have complete control in community self-development (McCamant and Durrett 1988). By community self construction inhabitants can also participate in some part of the building construction (Babos 2019). It is also possible to join a collaborative housing movement and use other groups’ experiences (Czischke 2018).
DOCONF/2021ǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀ 42 Facing Post-Socialist Urban Heritage
4. The adaptation of cohousing model in Hungary and Poland
Nowadays, profit oriented and individual developments are mainly taking place in the Polish housing market. Although some housing initiatives start to occur, which can be classified as cooperative housing or cohousing projects. (Twardoch 2017a) The implementation of bottom up housing development in Poland faces several difficulties, which was summarized by Habitat for Humanity Poland.
4.1. Positioning the cohousing situation in Poland
Self-build Housing Cooperative Pomorze is located in the suburbia of GdyniyWilczno. The project is about 3 multi unit buildings with a total of 24 apartments. It was founded because of the high prices in the housing market, so the initiators tried to provide housing for the immediate families. The buildings of the Pomorze are simple and are built repeatedly, in order to lower the construction costs. The futural dwellers initiated the project, it is an entirely bottom up initiative. Dwellers took part in the site selection, in the operation of design and construction works. But the difficult element was getting the financing, because of the lack of experience in granting loans for cooperative buildings initiated by the dwellers as a group. The dwellers maintain the buildings together but besides, they have no other shared activities. They own the property together, the project operates as a civil law partnership (Twardoch 2017b).
Self build Housing Cooperative Konstancin is in the Warsaw metropolitan area, in Konstancin. The project is a terraced building with 8 apartments. It was built as social housing assisted by Habitat for Humanity Poland. This help involves: providing legal counsel, supporting the preparatory work, securing material donations, involving volunteers in the construction works, supporting in negotiations with a bank, and readiness for guaranteeing the loan to the families. The futural dwellers’ involvement
ǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀ DOCONF2021 / Budapest / http://doconf.architect.bme.hu/ 43
Despite these circumstances, some cohousing pilot projects have been implemented in Poland; these differ in their basic approach. Analyzing three initiatives, experimental cohousing projects in Poland represent three different approaches towards the initiator: as a completely bottom up initiative; benefiting from the support of the city or a non-profit organization.
Figure 2. Case studies from Poland, in order: Self build Housing Cooperative Pomorze, Selfbuild Housing Cooperative Konstancin, Self build Housing Cooperative Nowe Żerniki (photos: NajlepszaBudowaPL, investmap.pl, R.Paczkowski)
expensive – targeted at profit-oriented developers – or unsuitable (too small or regulations do not allow for multi family housing development). Another barrier to collaborative housing initiatives is the lack of a greater level of engagement of the inhabitants (the members of a cohousing) and the lack of proactive, action oriented people or groups. Low cohousing popularity in Poland may be also caused by its practical absence from housing debates and innovative solutions. (Kutypa et al. 2018)
4.2. Experimental cohousing projects in Poland
Table 1. Case studies from Poland (Own editing, Source of the data: Habitat for Humanity Poland)
Shared tenure civil law partnership of inhabitants homeowner association of inhabitants civil law partnership of inhabitants
Finished Finished Finished
Support no support in gaining finances and voluntary work from Habitat for Humanity Poland
Shared creation
Date 2012 2018 2014
Housing type Cooperative housing Social housing Cohousing Building type 3 multi unit building Terraced building 3 multi unit building Number of flats 24 (8x3) 8 18
Self build Housing Cooperative Nowe Żerniki development is in Wrocław. In this case, the project was initiated by the city, under a bigger development project. Over the two year workshops, there were developed guidelines for the area and also detailed solutions for particular plots and public spaces. It was determined that three plots of the area will be designated for construction groups, so tenders were prepared for bottom up cooperatives. To proceed with the tender it was obligatory to provide a signed partnership agreement and a ready development concept, in which it was obligatory to design common areas. The chosen project was a block containing 3 multiunit buildings, with a total of 18 apartments. The project has common areas, like a stroller room, a bike garage, and a common day-room for the organization of events. in all three buildings. There are also extra business spaces: a dentist’s office, a nursery, and a café. The inhabitants took part in the development process and the co creation, they have common activities too. They maintain the buildings together, organize events and the café is run by the members of one of the self build housing cooperatives (Kutypa et al. 2018).
Self build Housing Cooperative Pomorze
Maintenance (plan to have) events, parties, run a café
activitiesShared
Shared spaces garden garden stroller room, a bike garage, common dayroom
Self build Housing Cooperative Konstancin
in the co-creation process is strong: they formed the group, selected the site, and created the architectural design together. As the group had a lack of money, they do not have shared inside spaces, they only share the building’s surroundings, the garden. They do not have any common activities, however, they plan on cooperating, when they can organize homeschooling for their children (Habitat for Humanity- Poland 2021).
Self build Housing Cooperative Nowe Żerniki Basic Statusinformation
municipality support in acquiring plots, law support
DOCONF/2021ǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀ 44 Facing Post-Socialist Urban Heritage
Initiator dwellers non profit organization city constructionFinancial loan secured with the plot, scheduled construction loan bailed by Habitat for Humanity Poland, loan/private founding
ǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀ DOCONF2021 / Budapest / http://doconf.architect.bme.hu/ 45
However, there are several obstacles to the implementation of the cohousing model in Hungary, these are the same in Poland but may be supplemented by the following: Developing and designing cohousing needs professions to be prepared for the new challenges and the growing number of initiatives, participatory design process, mentoring and mediation methods and the architectural requirements of the community, these topics are missing in architecture education. The other blocking factor is the lack of information about cohousing: it often happens that although someone has a desire and need for community housing, they do not know if this option exists at all or how to start the process. One of the biggest barriers is to be found in the misconceptions about cohousing or rental housing, people think owning a property is safer, which is closely related to the shared rental forced on people in socialist times (GlatzDespite2016). these circumstances, some experimental cohousing pilot projects have been implemented in Hungary too. The three initiatives from Hungary represent the different approaches towards the initiator: as a bottom-up initiative; initiated by the municipality of a city or by a non profit organization.
The Hungarian housing market is similar to the Polish one: it is dominated by developers or individual housing projects. Though some small-scaled housing initiatives start to occur, which can be classified as bottom up cohousing projects. While the idea of collectivity turned up in market based or city supported housing developments (Babos et al. 2018).
4.3. Experimental cohousing projects in Hungary
4.1. Positioning the cohousing situation in Hungary
Figure 3. Case studies from Poland, in order: Zugló Housing Coop, Biró Foundation Housing, E-Co Housing (photos: Rákóczi Collective, Annamária Babos, ABUD design,)
Zugló Housing Coop is Located in Zugló, in one of the popular residential areas outside the center of Budapest. It is a three-story co living space within a multi generational building. The initiators (called: Rakóczi Collective) have been working for around seven years to establish the first collectively owned, rental based housing cooperative building in Hungary. The group’s aim is to make a cooperative housing network based on the Zuglo Housing Coop pilot project. The building is owned by a civil law partnership, where the members are the inhabitants of the building and they rent their rooms for a fixed price. The inhabitants took part in the creation process: they negotiated about the loans, organized the co design, and made construction works too. They share more spaces, co living means that in this building dwellers have separate bedrooms and share the spaces which are necessary for everyday life. The 7 private rooms are around 20 m2 per person, with further 150 m2 common inside spaces (kitchens, bathrooms, living room, storage spaces, collective spaces) and a large garden (Szabó - Szarvas 2020).
DOCONF/2021ǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀ 46 Facing Post-Socialist Urban Heritage
Biró Foundation Housing is located in the XII. District of Budapest close to nature. The building is co-living within a five-story family supported by a foundation. The In Memoriam Dr. Biró Éva Foundation's aim is to maintain a social project and provide community living and home for young professionals who are working in the field of health care. They have separate bedrooms and share the kitchen, living room, working room, storage spaces, sauna, and the garden with a pool as well. This project is a community of 8 10 young adults, who can apply for short term subsidized living. The Foundation owns the building and selects inhabitants regarding their social background and possible integration into the community. The Foundation developed the project, so the inhabitants did not take part in the creation. They share the activities of everyday life and caring about profession and self development through organizing lectures and workshops (Babos – Horogh 2020).
E-Co-Housing – “Co-creating a Regenerative Housing Project Together with the Community '' project will be located in Zugló, Budapest. It is a housing project co financed by the European Union (in the third Urban Innovative Action Program) and the municipality of Zugló District. The E Co Housing project aims to build a new multi unit building with 27 affordable (supported rental) apartments for people in social need. While the E-Co-Housing project development creates a new model of urban social housing with the ecological building technology and the community methods of the cohousing model. It is expected from this new model to contribute to sustainable development in the sense of environment, society, and economy: the affordability, the ecological technologies, and the community methods will increase each other’s efficiency. The futural dwellers are not involved in the creation process, the design of the building is based on focus group meetings. They have to apply for the apartment every 3 years. The building will be owned by the municipality, the residents will rent their apartments at a lower price compared to the market. The use of the common multifunctional room, garden, storage, and shop will be specified during the implementation within the framework of the mentor program for dwellers (Kuhk 2020).
Initiator dwellers non profit organization city constructionFinancial Private loans of the members financializedBirófoundation City gives the plot, UIA financialize the construction works
4.4. Obstacles and opportunities of the cohousing creation model in CEE countries like Hungary and Poland - 3000
Zugló Housing Coop Biró Foundation Housing E-Co Housing
Shared tenure Owner: civil law Renter:partnershipdwellers (can be the same)
Childcare, events, repair work
Shared spaces Kitchen, living room, garden, storage no Garden, living room, kitchen, sauna storage,room,Multifunctionalgarden,shop
Table2. Case studies from Hungary (Own editing, Source of the data: CoHousing Budapest Association)
Housing type Cooperative housing Social housing Social housing Building type multi generational family house family house multi unit building Number of flats 2 use as 1 1 27
Basic Statusinformation
Shared creation
Owner: the city Renter: dwellers
Owner: the foundation, Renter: dwellers
Finished Finished In planning process Date 2019 2014 ?
Support no no EU support via UIA project
Shared activities Maintenance, activities of everyday life activities of everyday life, caring about self development
Cohousing initiatives are a novelty in Poland and Hungary and could become one of the trends in the housing market. When comparing realized experimental cohousing initiatives in these countries one important thing has to be noted: there are no realized multi unit building scaled projects in Hungary yet, and there are no projects with real cooperative ownership. It can be stated that the polish projects emphasized the self build group, but in the Hungarian project, the common space and activities are more important. Other differences are that the Hungarian projects are from Budapest, the capital, but the Polish ones are from different cities, which could come from the different approaches of the citizens to the innovative housing solutions of the countryside and the capital.Ifwelook at the six case studies, we can state that the features of the cohousing model are realized in only one project, in Self build Housing Cooperative Nowe Żerniki. In this project, the municipality predetermined the importance of the model and accordingly supported the project as well and the common spaces in it are much more for the public. Generally, cohousing in Western Europe contain many common spaces or rooms for spending time together. Unfortunately, such places are not created within Polish, Hungarian, or CEE countries cohousing communities.
ǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀ DOCONF2021 / Budapest / http://doconf.architect.bme.hu/ 47
REFERENCES
Bestakova, V. (2015). Cohousing in the Czech Republic, in wohnbund e.W. (ed.) Europe - Co operative Housing. Berlin: Jovis Verlag. pp.74 79.
CoHousing Budapest Association, website. https://www.cohousingbudapest.hu/home (Accessed: 2021.07.09)
It can be stated that the community solutions (common idea formulation, participatory design process, self development, community self-construction, or joining to a collaborative housing movement) in the co creation process of cohousing are not used in the examined CEE countries. Its theoretical and practical knowledge is a fundamental obstacle to the adaptation of the cohousing model. This is why they try to reach compromises in different ways from country to country and even from project to project, in which the essence of cohousing can be lost.
5. Conclusion
DOCONF/2021ǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀ 48 Facing Post-Socialist Urban Heritage
Babos, A. Szabó, J. Orbán, A. Benkő, M. (2020) Sharing Based Co Housing Categorization: A Structural Overview of the Terms and Characteristics Used in Urban Co Housing, ÉpitésÉpitészettudomány 48. 3. 331 352.
Fenster, M. (1999) Community by Covenant, Process, and Design: Cohousing and the Contemporary Common Interest Community. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 15. 1. 3 54.
Babos, A. Horogh, P. Theisler, K, K. (2018) Co housing. Példák Bécsben és a közösségi együttélés lehetőségei Budapesten. Utóirat. A Régi Új Magyar Építőművészet melléklete 18. 101. 69 76.
Babos, A. (2019) Werkpalast CoHousing: Case Study of Collective Reuse of a Prefabricated School Building. In: Facing Post Socialist Urban Heritage Conference Proceeding, Ed.: Benkő, Melinda. Urb/bme, Budapest 34 37.
Czischke, D. Carriou, C. Lang, R (2020) Collaborative Housing in Europe: Conceptualizing the Field. HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY. 37. 1, 1 9.
Czischke, D. (2018) Collaborative housing and housing providers: towards an analytical framework of multi-stakeholder collaboration in housing co production. International Journal of Housing Policy 18. 1. 55 81.
An analysis of experimental cohousing initiatives, both Polish and Hungarian, leads to the conclusion that the essence of the cohousing model is – at least for now feasible with financial and legal support. Furthermore, to prevent modifying the original concept of a cohousing project, all actors as experts, initiators, and supporters would need continuous monitoring of the projects. This statement is also supported by the fact that initiative groups in Hungary often appear and disappear (for example Öko Közösségben Élni, Fainfalva, B Oldal, Rural cohousing, Király co living), seeing the amount of work ahead (CoHousing Budapest Association 2020). The opportunities for these initiative groups could be much wider with indirect and direct support and help from the experts. The results of the research reveal that the following steps could lead to the implementation of cohouing model in the CEE countries: From the expert side, a continuous learning, dissemination of knowledge about the cohousing and co creation model would help the community part of the projects. From the supporters (both civil and public sector) side, the change of legal structure enabling collective self build and ownership, as well as providing of specific real estate (either empty houses or empty plots) to communities for cohousing projects
Babos, A; Horogh, P (2020). Közösen lakni és együtt fejlődni? – Az In Memoriam Dr. Biró Éva Alapítvány és közössségi lakhatás feltáró tanulmánya. In Memoriam Dr. Biró Éva Alapítvány.Budapest. 10 16.
Glatz, Zs. (2016) Integrative co housing projects for social inclusion in Hungary. NHR Colloquium Workshop: Economic and social approaches to housing public policyIntegrative co housing projects for social inclusion in Hungary. 4 6.
ǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀǀ DOCONF2021 / Budapest / http://doconf.architect.bme.hu/ 49
Glatz, Zs. Komlosi, B. (2015) Co Housing Knowledge Transfer for a Sustainable and Resilient Housing Future - the Community Living Hub in Hungary, ENHR Workshop: Social Housing: Institutions, Organisations and Governance. 3-5.
Ogrin, A (2016) Cooperative housing: beyond traps of ownership and renting for profit. Care Cooperatives online magazine. Available at:https://www.carecooperatives.eu/blog/stories and cases/cooperative housing beyond traps of ownership and renting for profit/ (Accessed: Scotthanson,2021.07.09).C.Scotthanson, (2005) The Cohousing handbook – Building place for community, New Society Publishers, Canada. 5-22.
id22: Institute for Creative Sustainability. (2017) EXPERIMENTDAYS 17 EUROPEAN COLLABORATIVE HOUSING HUB, Report. Berlin. 4-5.
Twardoch, A. (2017). Collaborative Housing Perspectives in Poland – Potential, barriers and legal possibilities. Architecture- Civil Engineering- Environment. 4. 45 52.
Habitat for Humanity Poland. website. Available at: https://habitat.pl/en/self build housing cooperatives in poland/ (Accessed: 2021.07.09)
Kuhk, A (2020). The E Co Housing project Journal N°1. Urban Innovative Actions. 8-11. Available at: https://www.uia initiative.eu/sites/default/files/2020 06/Budapest_E Co%20Housing_Journal_0.pdf (Accessed: 2021.07.09)
Szabó, N; Szarvas, M (2020). RENTAL HOUSING COOPERATIVE IN HUNGARY. Solidarity Economy Center. Budapest. 2-8.
Twardoch, A. (2017). Collaborative Housing Perspectives - Definition, historical overview and examples. Architecture- Civil Engineering- Environment. 4. 33 44.
La Fonda, M. Tsvetkova L. (2017) CoHousing Inclusive - Selbstorganisiertes, gemeinschaftliches Wohnen für alle. Jovis 116-121.
Larsen, H. G. (2019) Three phases of Danish cohousing: tenure and the development of an alternative housing form. Housing Studies 34. 8. 1349 1371.
Tummers, L (2015) Understanding co housing from a planning perspective: why and how? Urban Research and Practice. 8. 64 78.
Kutypa, M. Piotrowski, K. Wójcik, D (2018) Cohousing as a form of collaborative housing. Research paper - Solid Ground, Habitat for Humanity. 6 9.
McCamant, K. Durrett, C. (1988) Cohousing – A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves. Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, California 15 16.