Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

DO IT TOGETHER Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living, a case study situated in ReykjavĂ­k, Iceland Simon Joscha Flender

Master thesis report Architecture May 2019 Lund University Faculty of Engineering, LTH Department of Architecture and Built Environment Simon Joscha Flender supervision: Mattias Kärrholm Bernt Nilsson examination:

Johnny Ă…strand

Thank you Elín Þórisdóttir Iris & Martin Flender Lea Nussbaumer Basil S Helfenstein ask arkitektar

Johnny Åstrand Bernt Nilsson Mattias Kärrholm

Abstract

1

Introduction: How do we want to live?

3

Research The field around cohousing Development of shared housing Current models of collective living Study visits & references Settlement typologies Space Programme

7 9 21 27 41 49

Analysis Location Site Survey Problems & Strategies Weather

52 58 65 79 86

Design proposal Urban layout Urban fabric Space usage Building design Shadow studies Perspectives Model photos Findings & reflections

94 96 98 100 106 108 117 126

4

Glossary

131

5

Literature & references

135

1

2

3

Abstract Living and acting in collectivity has been a substantial aspect of human development. Built examples of intentional collective living complexes are found in various cultures around the globe some of which are still in use today. With the arrival of the industrial revolution and the influx of huge numbers of workers into cities, the question of collective housing gained momentum. The later quest of feminists to liberate women from housework and the even later liberalization of societal values during the 1968s student protests prepared the ground for the first modern cohousing community which was created in Denmark in 1967.

Today the Icelandic capital ReykjavĂ­k is encouraging the search for new models of living together after having grown by urban sprawl for decades. The city also has a substantial housing backlog making the construction of new units necessary. While the highly individualized and family-centered Icelandic society in general might not completely embrace collective living, there is certainly a number of individual and societal issues that cohousing could help with. These issues comprise the lack of public life, high living cost, social isolation of immigrants, regular traffic jams as well as high average energy consumption in the housing sector due to detached housing typologies. This thesis analyses both in research as in design how the above issues could be tackled with the tools of architecture in regards to housing and how experiences and reflections from cohousing could help with that.

Research on the topic was carried out in literature review, case study of existing cohousing projects and survey of local people. The design project was based on insights gained in the previous stages and aimed at achieving additional observations. As a housing design for a cohousing community can never be absolute without the input of the actual community, the present thesis rather focused on learning about important aspects when creating cohousing.

This master thesis is intended as an impulse for discussion about collective housing and how people want to live in Iceland in the near future.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

1

2

Introduction

How do we want to live?

Economical and local housing market developments in many countries see people scrambling to get into the housing market or to find housing at all - and to this trend Iceland is no exception. Trying to save up enough to buy an apartment - or alternatively getting financial help from parents - young adults are struggling with long-standing trends concerning real wages and housing market developments. The centralized nature of the state requires many to find housing in the capital region of ReykjavĂ­k where 65% of the Icelandic population dwells. The overpriced market leaves first-buyers with the only hope real estate values to rise even more for them to be able to pass the load on to the next buyer. In case the market drops, many might not be able to cover the huge loans they have taken to buy the apartment.

In order to bring in enough money to make a living, more parents need to be working now as a study of family employment situations over the last decades show.1 This not only due to sinking real wages but also caused by growing commuting times fuelled itself by lower affordability of housing in relative proximity to the workplace.2 In the case of Reykjavík this development is amplified by the functional separatism in city planning creating housing areas without job opportunities which in turn intensifies commuting and traffic volumes. For many people around the world, being able to find housing in central, attractive locations somewhat close to their place of work is a luxury and often can’t be combined with their monthly budget. In heavily congested or spread-out cities even trivial activities such as meeting friends may become unattractive with travel times taking up much of the time people should be spending with their dear ones. Ultimately, little autonomy over how we spend our time outside work hours, regular family chores and insufficient economy to join social activities may lead to social isolation.

1 anon (2015) Raising Kids and Running a Household: How Working Parents Share the Load, http://www. pewsocialtrends.org/2015/11/04/raising-kids-and-running-a-householdhow-working-parents-share-the-load, accessed 14 March 2019 2 anon (2015) Millions of people spend two or more hours commuting a day, https://www.theguardian. com/money/2015/nov/09/millionpeople-two-hours-commuting-tucstudy, accessed 13 March 2019

So how can members of society become truly independent and lead richer and more free lives? Should we not profit more of each others knowledge, property and presence?

The built environment unconsciously shapes our understanding of how we want or need to live and it is not until we see and imagine the application of different forms of living together that another way seems feasible. Many however do not have the tools and power to imagine, endeavour or implement other ways. Therefore I see it as a challenge for architects and planners to take on the reevaluation of current systems and question the status quo.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

3

1

research The field around cohousing Development of shared housing Current models of collective living Shared housing today Study visits & references Settlement typologies Spatial program

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

5

Weather

Urban fabric

Prefabricated housing

Materials

access schemes Current reference projects

Local building heritage

Site

spatial arrangement

Social culture Location

Mobility

One-kitchen house

Privacy / sharing

Kibbutz

Narkomfin

Architectural history of shared housing Self-build

Cohousing

Familistère Utopian concepts

Sharing / circular economy

New Harmony

Phalanstère behavioural psychology

Types

community involvement

sense of ownership

Co-living Housing market processes

Supported living

Community land trust

Affordable housing Tenure

owner occupied

6

rental

Research

the field around cohousing The term “cohousing� is encircled by many other terms and fields some of which not necessarily have something to do with architecture itself.

They do however shape the nature of any given cohousing scheme. The diagram is not meant to be explanatory in itself, but should rather illustrate the complexity I found when first entering the topic. While the given time frame for this master thesis did not allow to examine each and every of the connected topics, it should be kept in mind, that cohousing has a rich background and touches on many different issues which can all influence a project and community in some direction.

For the research and design parts of this project I have decided to focus mostly on aspects which influence the architectural expression of the housing design. This is not to say that this project covers all aspects which may translate into built form, but rather to inform that some of the attached fields depicted in the diagram on the left have not been covered in this work.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

7

8

Research

development of shared housing Historically, people have been living closely together as communities of different sizes in towns, villages or houses for various purposes. Mostly this happened out of a necessity rather than a choice with the reasons being manifold: Family ties, protection, trade, provision, shelter and labour brought people together and made them engage in collective action. What is interesting for this thesis is to examine how and why groups of people decided to take the question of housing as a collective and in what the results are. While many historical forms of living are still in use by communities in present day, architects, planners and utopians have tried to adapt such forms of living together to fit with modern society of the respective time. This chapter is aiming to give a broad overview of historical shapes of collective housing as well as modern adaptations since when we discuss shared housing we should also know its heritage. The listing of settlements does not imply that each and every project contributed and led to current developments we see today. However, in many of these there are things to learn regarding communal living.

“Everything I do comes from the past, not only as forms but as real things. Everything is connected to the past in real things, but it’s also connected to the future, because these things here will be part of the future, of my future and the future of other people.“ Peter Zumthor

As stated by Studio Weave in its report titled ‘Living closer’ “written history is riddled with examples of highly collaborative settlements offering new models for living together”3 which were established with various intentions ranging from a desire for “greater security and protection” as well as “spiritual, economic or even sexual liberation.” Some early examples of structures used by intentional communities dating back as far as the 10th century are still in use today.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

3 Studio Weave (Je Ahn, Olivia Tusinski, Chloe Treger) (2018). Living closer - The many faces of co-housing. 1st ed., p. 12

9

Rundling, North Germany 12th century

Rundling LĂźbeln, Hermann Klauck

3 Studio Weave (Je Ahn, Olivia Tusinski, Chloe Treger) (2018). Living closer - The many faces of co-housing. 1st ed., p. 12

“The rundling was a common 12th century village form used by the Slavs, comprising a central, circular village green owned in common with individually owned farmsteads radiating out like spokes of a wheel�.3 The question as to why the settlements were structured in this particular manner is still being discussed, it might however be that the settlers used previous settlements such as slavic round hamlets as examples.

Circulade, South France 10th - 15th century

Circulade Bram, Yvon Bertrand

4 Yvon Bertrand (2009) Urbanisme Languedocien: la Circulade, http://adicab.over-blog.com/article-36009970.html, accessed 18 July 2019

10

A similar village form called circulade emerged in south France between the 10th and 15th century. Historians are not entirely sure about the main reason for the round shape though it might be possible that it originates from a mix of reasons such as short distances, sacral purity and good defense possibilities in a landscape otherwise not offering a strategic advantage.4

Research

Tulou, Fujian, China 17th century

Tulou houses, leadtochina.com

“A tulou (en: “earthen building”) is a traditional communal Hakka people residence found [...] in South China, usually of a circular configuration surrounding a central shrine, and part of Hakka architecture. These vernacular structures were occupied by clan groups“ and built from 17th century on.5 The buildings were firstly constructed and inhabited by families from the north looking for better living conditions who could defend themselves against attacks in the fortress like buildings.6 The structures are completely inward-facing without any openings to the outside except for the entrance. All dwellings are arranged along the outside wall while the central area is kept open surrounded by cooking and eating quarters. Bedrooms are reached via public stairs showcasing the lesser need for privacy. The central area is collectively owned and used for communal activity f.ex. preparing harvested crops. On the sides are other social functions like schools, boarding houses or cafélike spaces. Hertzberger concludes the unique character as “neither house nor town, but a little bit of both” and states that “they could be of indirect influence in our quest for new concepts of housing”.6

5 anon (n.d.) Tulou, https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulou, accessed 18 July 2019 6 Hertzberger, H. (2010) Space and the Architect - Lessons in Architecture 2, 1st ed. 010 Publishers, p. 127

6 Hertzberger, H. (2010) Space and the Architect - Lessons in Architecture 2, 1st ed. 010 Publishers, p. 129

Phalanstère, France 1808 - 1837

drawing of a phalanstère, August-Bebel

In a different time and place, utopian thinker Charles Fourier calculated that 1.620 would be the optimum number for people living and working together. His utopian concept drafted between 1808 and 1837 was supposed to challenge the prevailing small family and traditional house structure which he thought to be places of “exile and oppression of women”.7 Fourier wanted people to live communally and engage in free love with the goal of re-shaping gender roles. The phalanstère was

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

7 anon (n.d.) Phalanstère, https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanst%C3%A8re, accessed 18 July 2019

11

designed as an organized building integrating urban and rural features and integrated dining rooms, meeting rooms, libraries and studies in the central part. One of the wing hosted noisy functions such as workshops while the other wing contained halls for meetings, ballrooms and other social functions. Furthermore the phalanstère also contained private apartments. Ultimately Fourier never mustered enough financial support to realize a phalanstère.

7 anon (n.d.) Phalanstère, http:// www.sterneck.net/utopia/zaigon-owen/index.php, accessed 18 July 2019

The concepts of the Phalanstère influenced other utopian projects like the settlement “New Harmony” founded in Indiana, USA by the British industrialist Robert Owen. A productive society comprised one thousand people who were to live under principles of gender equality and communal property. The goal of the social experiment was to “procure for all members the greatest amount of happiness, to secure it for them and to transmit it to their children.”7 The experiment however failed after only a few years since the community members held on to their traditional, rather egoistic behaviours instead of focusing on a communal mindset. There were also too few skilled workers to make the society productive which resulted in the community never becoming independent of Ownes sponsorship.

Familistère, Guise, France 1859 - 1984

Familistère in Guise, wikipedia (user: Velvet)

7 anon (n.d.) Familistère, https:// de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familist%C3%A8re, accessed 18 July 2019

12

When the industrial revolution lead masses of workers to the cities, a question about their housing arose. Living conditions were poor with workers and their families being housed in slums. French industrialist and utopian socialist Jean-Baptiste André Godin designed the Familistère during the 19th century in order to create good housing for his workers in the vicinity of the factories. The complex comprises three residential buildings each enclosing an inner glazed patio, schools, childcare facilities, a bathing house and a theater. The building concept was influenced by Fouriers Phalanstère. The cooperative model was only dissolved in the 1960s with the building complex still being inhabited today. Today, there is also a museum, a café and the theater is still being used for cultural events.7

Research

Kibbutzim, Israel 1909 - present

Kibbutz Lavi, wikipedia (user: Reneem)

A kibbutz (lit. gathering, clustering) is a “collective community in Israel [...] traditionally based on agriculture.�8 The first kibbutz called Degania was established 1909. Kibbutzim were established by settlers coming to Palestine for reasons of economy and security. As more Jews emigrated to Palestine during the 1920s, bigger kibbutzim were built to accommodate the settlers and were later on also strategically placed when it became obvious that Palestine would be partitioned to secure the Israeli claim to the land. Kibbutzim also began to assume a more prominent military role through the acquisition of rifles and drilling of kibbutz members in shooting. Kibbutzniks (the residents of the Kibbutzim) fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The first kibbutzniks hoped to be more than farmers. They sought to create a new type of society where all would be equal and free from exploitation. Principles of equality was taken extremely seriously and communism was practiced. Kibbutzniks did not individually own tools, or even clothing. Even gifts and income received from outside were turned over to the common treasury Up until recently, members ate meals together in the communal dining hall.

This was seen as an important aspect of communal life.8 Child education was a major factor in breaking patriarchy and founding kibbutzniks agreed that viewing children as a possession of the parents was not beneficial to community life. Therefore they created communal children’s houses for the children to spend most of their time only seeing the parents in the afternoon after work and before dinner.9 To achieve economical equality and rid women of dependency, traditional marriage was abolished. While women at first were performing the same tasks as men, later on their roles drifted back to traditionally female roles such as cooking, sewing and watching over children. All decisions influencing community life were made to promote more and richer community life - sometimes affecting residents privately. As no property was allowed all purchases were made through the community and had to be approved. Thus, items that would possibly lead to couples spending more time in the private sphere such as tea kettles were prohibited.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

8 anon (n.d.) Kibbutz, https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz, accessed 19 July 2019

9 Spiro, Melford E. (1963) Kibbutz Venture in Utopia, 1st ed. Schocken

13

Heimhof, Vienna, Austria (one kitchen house) 1923

Heimhof in Vienna, wikipedia (user:Haeferl)

The concept of a one kitchen house in which a centrally located industrial sized kitchen would replace individual kitchen inside the private apartments was drafted by the womens rights activist Lily Braun. The main intention behind the concept was the liberation of women from household duties to release them from financial dependency and to break up the planning paradigm of the isolated small family. Various one kitchen houses have been built in several places such as Copenhagen (1903), Stockholm (1906), Berlin (1908), Letchworth (1909), Zurich (1916), Hamburg (1921) and Vienna (1923).

8 anon (n.d.) Hull House, https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_House, accessed 18 July 2019 9 anon (n.d.) Settlement movement, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_movement, accessed 18 July 2019

10 anon (n.d.) One kitchen house, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Eink%C3%BCchenhaus#Letchworth_1909, accessed 18 July 2019

14

The concept also referenced to the example of Hull House in Chicago which was founded by in 1889 by Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr and was run by the American settlement movement. Hull House was initially operated by a group of university women aiming to “provide social and educational opportunities to working class people” many of which were European immigrants) in the surrounding neighbourhood.8 The goal of the movement was to “establish “settlement houses” in poor urban areas in which volunteer middle-class ‘settlement workers’ would live, hoping to share knowledge and culture with, and alleviate the poverty of, their low-income neighbours.”9 In the one kitchen houses central kitchens were staffed by employees paid through a residents association and were connected to the private units by food elevators. Most realized one kitchen houses featured additional communal facilities or services such as roof terraces or laundry spaces. However, most projects failed after a short while, private units were equipped with single kitchens and communal rooms re-purposed. Other facilities like laundry rooms though often remained in use by the community.10 In the mid 1920s the economization and standardization of private kitchens conducted by Bauhaus member Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky overtook the discussion around one kitchen houses in importance.

Research

Narkomfin building, Moscow, Russia 1932

perspective drawing of the Narkomfin building, Moisei Ginsburg

In post-revolution Russia of the 1920s architects were striving for a rationalization of building processes and contemplated the socialist way of living resulting in socially experimental architecture. They discussed the necessity of total collectivization, the typology of socialist cities as well as the emancipation of women from house work.11 The Narkomfin building was designed by architects Moisei Ginsburg and Ignaty Milinis for high ranking officials of the People’s Commissariat of Finance (Narodnij Komutet Finantzow, hence the name). They designed the building according to the theory of “social condensation” which claims that with means of architecture the social behaviour of people in public spaces can be influenced “with the goal of breaking down perceived social hierarchies in an effort to create socially equitable spaces.” Strategies for social condensation include “the intentional overlapping and intersecting of programs within a space through circulation. [...] The premise is that these areas of collision create the environment where there is potential to allow for otherwise disperse social communities to interact.”12 The building is therefore also called “social condenser.”

11 anon (n.d.) Narkomfin-Kommunehaus, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Narkomfin-Kommunehaus, accessed 18 July 2019

12 anon (n.d.) Social condenser, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ condenser, accessed 18 July 2019

sections of Narkomfin, architectural review

The building provided a range of different apartment types to accommodate different family or social needs. The units were mainly designed for resting and were therefore equipped with “minimal facilities for cooking and eating, to encourage use of the collective facilities.”13 The building featured a split-level organization floors were resulting in double-height living rooms and the concentration of entrance doors on only two access corridors increasing the potential for coincidental encounters and social interaction between neighbours.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

13 Studio Weave (Je Ahn, Olivia Tusinski, Chloe Treger) (2018). Living closer - The many faces of co-housing. 1st ed., p. 24

15

Cité Radieuse (Unité d’Habitation), Marseille, France 1947 - 1952

Cité Radieuse (Unite d’Habitation), Marseille, Heather Shimmin

14 anon (n.d.) Unité d‘Habitation, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Unit%C3%A9_d%E2%80%99Habitation, accessed 18 July 2019

In his Unite d’Habitation (colloquially called “living machines”14) buildings Swiss architect Le Corbusier continued the notion of collective living on a big scale also found in the Narkomfin project. The 18 storey building containing 337 apartments hovers on several piloti creating space for life on the ground. Le Corbusier planned shops and services on the seventh and eighth level and made the roof accessible in order for residents and the public to meet. Apartments are constructed as maisonettes over two storeys from east to west facade allowing the design to function with access hallways on merely every second level.

Edifício Copan, José Moscardi

Another example of mass-housing in brutalistic architecture with added services is the Edifício Copan in São Paulo designed by Oscar Niemeyer. The building comprises a floor area of 116.000m2 on 32 storeys with about 70 stores on the publicly accessible ground floor and was finalized in 1966. The building concept however does have the intention of socially educating its inhabitants and features six vertical access cores (Blocks A - F) with elevators leading to very small hallways each serving two apartments.

16

Research

Sættedammen Cohousing, Denmark 1972

Bofællesskabet Sættedammen, Sættedammen

Sættedammen was the first cohousing project and started the tradition of intentional housing communities in Denmark and is currently inhabited by 27 families. Cohousing was first attempted in 1966 when architect Jan Gudmand-Høyer purchased a building site on the outskirts of Copenhagen with a few friends. Although this project never came to life due to complaints of neighbours, Gudmand-Høyer published an article about cohousing in a major newspaper and received tremendous response from over 200 interested people.15 In 1968 the new group started two cohousing communities who worked on the respective project in parallel, sharing information. The Sættedammen project was inaugurated in 1970 while the other project called Skråplanet was finished in 1973. Jan Gudmand-Høyer continued work with cohousing communities and designed many others such as Trudeslund and Æblevangen communities. Sættedammen came into being after an open letter by Bodil Graae demanding that “children should have one hundred parents” after which the project group comprising people with different focuses (sharing expenses, free love, family community) started the process of finding their ideal scheme.16 Community life includes the use of functions such as laundry rooms but also common dinners that are prepared by each of the families according to a schedule. Each family is responsible for one meal a month including paying for it and cleaning up - but in turn welcome at all other dinners. Kids can use a childrens playroom next to the dining room giving adults some peace to talk.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

15 user: alvin (2016) Introduction to Co-housing in Denmark, https://newspitalfields.wordpress. com/2016/02/10/introduction-to-cohousing-in-denmark/, accessed 22 July 2019

16 Henley, N. (2017) Cohousing in Denmark - A visit to Saettedammen near Copenhagen, https://cohabitas.com/news/128/coliving/Cohousing+in+Denmark+-+A+visit+to+Saettedammen%2C+the+world%27s+first+c o-housing+community, accessed 22 July 2019

17

Conclusion

17 Maak, N. (2015) Maak, Niklas (2015) Living Complex - From Zombie City to the New Communal, 1st ed. Hirmer, p. 136ff.

The development of collective housing models shows that throughout history there are various reasons and inciting factors bringing a collective to life. Intention and organizational structure of a collective can thus vary strongly between settlements. The mainstream living scheme certainly has focused on nuclear family housing, but it seems like that has also been contested by those interested in finding models that suit other ideas of an ideal society or are less focused on the single family.17 In this thesis I will focus on the development into cohousing communities respectively those with the intention of living together based on free will and the desire for strong social relations and not based on security or financial need alone.

In the cosmos of collective housing in present day, there are various schemes catering to different needs. To approach the different terms of the field, I will use the roof term “housing+� to describe the family of schemes which differ in levels of sharing as well as in their intention. Not all schemes involve living together as a community, but there is always some element of doing it together. This could be a group of people who decide to live together because they feel this could help them live more environmentally sustainable. It could also mean that a group of people with similar needs form an association in order to create housing which meets to their requirements. Collective action concerning housing could also be undertaken as a community land trust aiming to secure housing for its members without implementing any sharing elements in the housing scheme.

The power structures of the housing+ schemes do not follow a uniform pattern either. While some forms are organized bottom-up and grant the individual a rather big say in decisions affecting the day-to-day, others feature a top-down structure in which the single resident is more of a tenant. In the following passage I will explain the categories of different housing+ schemes to give an overview about what is happening in the field of collective living at the moment.

18

Research

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

19

20

Research

current models of collective living / housing+ Before diving into the slightly complex and confusing field of categorizing collective living models, I should mention that there are several ways to categorize these housing schemes (e.g. according to built, power or organizational structures, by intention, ...). All methods of analysing the schemes have their own qualification depending on the perspective researchers assume on the topic. In a comprehensive summary of research carried out beforehand, Swedish researcher Dick Urban Vestbro (2000) categorized models of collective housing. The models identified by him partly overlap with the schemes I have listed and the following list presents a joint summary of findings.

The first model according to Vestbro presents the „collective housing unit with central kitchen and other collectively organized facilities.“18 This model has been described above as one kitchen house and features the following subgroups. Vestbro quotes Linden saying that “in Sweden all of the following three subgroups are referred to as ‘kollektivhus’, defined as ‘a multi-family housing unit with private apartments and communal spaces.’”19 1. Classical collective housing unit, based on services through staff, aimed at reducing housework (coming from a feminist perspective).

2. Swedish cohousing, also called the self-work-model in which residents take care of meals and other tasks through communal effort.

18 Vestbro, D. (2000) From collective housing to cohousing - a summary of research, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 17, pp. 164-78 19 Linden, P. (1992) Kollektivhuset och mellanzonen. Om rumslig struktur och socialt liv (Collective housing and intermediary space.

About spatial structure and social life). Ph.D. thesis, Lund University, Building Functions Analysis, School of Architecture.

3. Service housing for the elderly in combination with cohousing where both parties use communal facilities. This however overlaps with the “supported living / extra care” category and I am unsure if it qualifies as being listed under one kitchen houses.

The second model according to Vestbro consists of Danish cohousing, so called bofællesskab. In contrast to Swedish collective housing coming from a background of reducing housework, the Danish model began “out of the movement of create a stronger sense of community”18 This model also features low-rise detached or semi-detached buildings whereas Swedish cohousing mostly uses a single, urban building. (confer chapter: study visits) Vestbro identifies the third model as “integrated service center” providing collective services and fourth model as collective housing for special categories such as the elderly, students or residents with disabilities. The fifth model is identified as the commune in which people who are not relatives or in a providing relationship live and eat together, usually in a large one-family unit.

Live/work, (L/W), co-living Live/work schemes, also called “co-living” are housing arrangements which largely cater to young, professional residents looking to combine living and working spheres. The projects vary in size and professionality from informal to more formal, centrally managed schemes also offering services like laundry or a hot-desk.20 Generally, co-living includes a

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

20 Studio Weave (Je Ahn, Olivia Tusinski, Chloe Treger) (2018). Living closer - The many faces of co-housing. 1st ed., p.62

21

21 anon (2012) Live/work units Q & A DCP Section 10.5n, https:// www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1209099/live-work-units-q---dcpsection-105, accessed 24 July 2019

22 anon (n.d.) Supported living, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supported_living, accessed 24 July 2019

23 anon (n.d.) The UK Co-housing network, https://cohousing.org.uk/ about/about-cohousing/, accessed 25 July 2019

22

furnished private room, access to common spaces like a kitchen, living room and utilities like wifi and appliances, cleaning services, and community events. The projects are often product of a conversion of existing non-residential buildings21 but are also purposely constructed by companies as WeLive, Common or Quarters where residents are offered places to work as well as a community to engage with. Co-living is mostly popular in cities drawing a young and open-minded clientele and currently available in cities on every continent.

Co-living is organized by a top-down power structure in which all major decisions are taken by the company running the scheme. Residents are each renting from the co-living company and only have minimal say in decisions affecting their day-to-day and need to observe house rules.

Fluctuation among residents naturally lessens the ability to influence the scheme. On the other hand, co-living schemes provide a great source of a social network and provide workspaces in a city where a newcomer would otherwise struggle to connect.

Supported living, extra care: Supported living schemes are explicitly catering to older or disabled persons, providing independent living with varying levels of on-site care. They are at times designed with the residents and aim at helping disabled citizens to attain or retain their independence.22 Supported living is closely connected to the “Independent Living” movement which is fighting to lift the stigma of disability from people with disabilities resulting in society viewing them as sick or defiant. With ageing societies independent living facilities have risen in popularity.

Cohousing, shared housing: The UK Co-housing network defines cohousing as “an intentional community, created and run by its residents”23 which covers a broad range of schemes attracting residents of various ages and life-stages, often responding to factors such as affordability and exhibiting characteristics such as shared values or intentions at the outset. In contrast to live/work schemes, cohousing schemes are mostly bottom up operations which give autonomy over how the community should be to the residents. The definition continues to specify that housing projects “include both the provision of private and common facilities” and that “where possible, design is used to encourage social interaction”. The way of cohousing that is meant here is also found in Vestbros analysis, namely in model 1, subgroup 2 as well as in model 2.

Research

While the previously stated definition for cohousing or shared housing is quite broad to encompass many projects, according to Studio Weave “literature review suggests four different aspects through which cohousing is commonly understood”.24 Some of these aspects might as well cover schemes other than cohousing that were previously mentioned. The following passage is summed up from the Studio Weave report ‘Living Closer’, which I very much recommend reading to those interested in shared living.

24 Studio Weave (Je Ahn, Olivia Tusinski, Chloe Treger) (2018). Living closer - The many faces of co-housing. 1st ed., p.62

Lense 1: Shared purpose or intention (f.ex. environmental sustainability, ageing with autonomy) “Groups of people who have chosen to live together for some common purpose beyond that of tradition, personal relationship or family ties.”25

Intentional communities - “groups of people living together with some shared resources on the basis of explicit common values” - include eco-villages, co-housing, community land trusts, co-ops and a range of other community types. Common among these is an element of purpose or intention at the outset. Helen Jarvis, a scholar of Co-housing, suggests that such “shared visions are the ‘glue’ binding collaborative community relations”.26 For some, these consist of a developed vision for an alternative way of life outside mainstream society. For others, these can consist of more general principles - such as personal conduct.

25 Sargisson, L. (2000). Utopian Bodies and the Politics of Transgression, Routledge

26 Jarvis, H. (2015) “Towards a deeper understanding of the social architecture of co-housing: evidence from the UK, USA and Australia” Urban Research & Practice pp. 93 - 105

Lense 2: Process of design and delivery “A well-designed, pedestrian-oriented community without significant resident participation in the planning may be ‘cohousing-inspired’, but it is not a cohousing community.”27

Numerous academic articles, as well as advocacy networks, see the involvement of future residents and members in co-design processes as essential to cohousing,27 though this is not a hard and fast rule. The reasons for this range from contributing to autonomy of future residents, to boosting capacity by helping them acquire conflict resolution skills and processes, to generating stewardship.28 Cohousing schemes have varying degrees of resident involvement, often being developer led either by housing associations or even for-profit developers. One recent example of this is Nightingale Housing in Australia. This not-for-profit operates similarly to a developer, managing demand, design and construction while also connecting directly with owner-occupiers (eliminating the need for a marketing budget); it also works with future residents

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

27 Belk, C. (2006). Cohousing communities: A sustainable approach to housing development, Diss. UC Davis

28 Brenton, M. (2010) Potential benefits of cohousing for older people: A literature review, Elder Woman

23

29 Stead, N. (2016) Affordable, sustainable, high-quality urban housing?

It’s not an impossible dream, http:// theconversation.com/affordable-sustainable-high-quality-urban-housingits-not-an-impossible-dream-57958, accessed 4 September 2019

30 Brenton, M. (2013). Senior cohousing communities – an alternative approach for the UK?

to hone designs in advance of construction. Nightingale’s landmark scheme, ‘The Commons’, offers residents their own vegetable patch alongside a shared rooftop garden, shared laundry room, ground floor yoga studio and no parking spaces.29 However, not all schemes involve deep levels of co-design with future residents, and some may even recruit them after the design phase entirely. This varies from scheme to scheme, but represents a portion of the Baugruppen in Berlin which offers a more community-oriented lifestyle, where residents can actually be recruited after the co-design phase (only working with the architect to customise their personal units). In the Netherlands, one senior co-housing project involved a housing association helping older tenants of existing apartment blocks to modify their homes and develop mutual support networks without leaving.30

Lense 3: Spatial arrangement or design (resident-led)

31 anon (n.d.) About Cohousing, https://cohousing.org.uk/about/ about-cohousing/, accessed 4 September 2019 32 Tummers, L. (2015) The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in Europe: A critical review of co-housing research, Urban Studies 33 anon (n.d.) The UK Co-housing network, https://cohousing.org.uk/ about/about-cohousing/, accessed 25 July 2019

“Includes both the provision of private and common facilities… design is used to encourage social interaction”31

All conceptions of co-housing seem to share share a presumption of shared spaces within their physical designs, with a majority of academic literature focusing on architecture and design perspectives,32 with much attention given to how how spatial design delivers in terms of social, environmental and economic sustainability ambitions. As the UK Cohousing Network asserts, “most Co-housing communities have a common house”.33

Lense 4: Expectations around lifestyle and behaviour amongst residents “Ran and controlled entirely by members of the group working together, it is based on mutual support, self-governance and active participation.”29

There seem to be two types of expectation for residents, related to lifestyle and behaviour: level of resident involvement (e.g. in management) and level of sharing between them (e.g. spaces and objects).

Most definitions include some element of resident-led management, or that residents are actively involved in governance, steering groups, sub-committees, etc. Literature also suggests there are expectations around sharing resources, facilities, and (social) mutual support, such as occasional shared meals, babysitting, etc., though it is a choice how often and to what degree members engage, as most units have sufficient private space.

24

Research

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

25

26

Research

study visits In order to understand the complexity of the subject and to grasp the size of the field, I have researched about existing cohousing communities and visited different schemes. Fortunately, there is a rich culture of cohousing in both Denmark and Sweden which enabled me to visit many different typologies easily. Most communities were found during online research with help of dedicated cohousing websites such as kollektivhuset.nu and bofaellesskab.dk or in literature. The communities I visited were chosen according to their building layout and range from an urban to suburban and rural setting. I tried to cover a wide range of settlement typologies in order to get a good idea of how different arrangements would influence interaction between residents and what the advantages of each would be. Mostly I did not schedule appointments with residents and rather tried to interview residents in case I met them on site. Being mostly interested in the settlement layout and how this would influence community life, I did not get access to many indoor spaces. However, photos from well-documented tours of other groups from the internet and floor plans helped to get a sufficient understanding of the building structures.

Although being located in geographical proximity cohousing has taken on very different forms in Denmark and Sweden. Mostly known as “kollektivhuset” in Sweden, cohousing focuses on urban housing inside one multi-storey building. There are however other schemes that focus on more suburban living. In Denmark, cohousing communities are called “bofællesskabet” and co me in different sizes and types. They often exist in suburban areas all over the country and mostly around Copenhagen. The general layout features detached or semi-detached houses which are grouped around an open, shared space with a common house in a central position.

The communities I analysed are: · Sofielunds Kollektivhuset, Malmö · Copper Lane Cohousing, London (no site visit) · Bofællesskabet Æblevangen, Greater Copenhagen · Ecovillage Munksøgård, Roskilde · Bofællesskabet Lange Eng, Greater Copenhagen

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

27

Sofielunds Kollektivhuset, Malmö

balcony access in courtyard, Bojana Lukac, Malmö Stadsbyggnadskontor

Tenure scheme rental Access scheme balcony access Completion 2014 Shared facilities industrial kitchen, dining room, laundry room, indoor bicycle parking, storage, childrens room, movie room, music room, workshops, guest apartment, yoga room, sauna, courtyard, roof terrace Community size 45 apartments (studio - five bedroom) Residential density 225 du/ha

28

This collective house and its association was named after the central Malmö neighbourhood Sofielund. The roof association Kollektivhus i Malmö consists of a people of all ages and started out as an interest group of friends in 2009 from where the group grew to almost 100 members until 2010. The group formed a partnership with local project developer MKB, who financed and oversaw construction which finished in 2014. The design was carried out by kanozi architects. The building is now owned by MKB and rented through a specially formed cooperative tenant association.

Intention The cooperative formulated main goals for itself, which are facilitating ecologically and economically sustainable everyday life and forming a house open to people of all ages and backgrounds. The building contains 45 apartments ranging from studios to five bedroom apartments.

Some units are rented by individual households while others are occupied by collectives emphasizing on the „open-to-all“ policy in the house.

Building structure As the building complex is located in an urban context of high density, from the outside it has a classic outlook of an urban block perimeter development with six storeys. In contrast to to this, Sofielunds Kollektivhuset arranges most of its communal functions on the ground floor, some of which are open to the public, like two commercial units that can be rented out. Views into other communal spaces like the laundry or dining room are permitted from the street, but the interaction with the public is restricted to that. The architects have arranged most spaces like workshops, media room or a loggia facing the internal courtyard.

More communal functions are to be found on the sixth floor which can

Research

be reached via elevator as well as external and internal staircases. The main access functions via access balconies which connect apartments and can be reached via staircase or elevator.

Impressions A study visit to the collective house took place during an evening in late February 2019. Since it was rather cold and dusk started to fall, no residents were visible out on the balconies. However, judging from photos and the amount of outdoor furniture and other place-making elements such as plants, hammocks and outdoor toys, it seems as if the balconies are well-adopted as extensions of the private unit, as they are supposed to be. In their primary function, the balconies are quite narrow with a clear width of only 1.50m now allowing for any permanent furniture.

They do however open and form pockets and dead ends which are separated from circulation space and much used for outdoor activities as can be seen in the picture on the left.

When passing on the balconies it was well possible to look into the apartments where residents were sitting in their kitchens or living rooms. These functions inside the apartments are organized to face the balcony allowing for interaction between inside and outside and enabling more private spaces like bedrooms to be situated on the outer facade of the building.

Although balcony access is stigmatized as a cheap solution and often found in low-cost developments or anonymous projects like the classic motel, here the architects have achieved a very different outcome. The balconies are widened in certain areas as seen in the photo to provide space for neighbourly life to develop. These areas are not assigned to particular private units, which enables residents to use any area promoting neighbourly contact. While the balconies can be used for informal contacts, a common roof terrace accessible from the third floor suits more intentional spending of time. The total building volume is 12m deep to which the massive access balconies are added on the southwest facade rendering the entrance and kitchen spaces rather dark.

Sofielunds Kollektivhuset

Sofielunds Kollektivhuset, transversal section

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

29

Copper Lane Cohousing, London

part of the central yard, Henley Halebrown Rorrison architects

Tenure scheme ownership Access scheme direct access, interior vertical circulation Completion 2014 Shared facilities raised central courtyard, communal multi-purpose hall, laundry room, workshop, shared gardens Community size six houses (70 - 165 m2) Residential density 12,5 du/ha

30

Copper Lane Cohousing is situated in Stoke Newington in North London at the end of a tight dead end. As far as the residents are concerned, this is the first example of Cohousing in London. The project consists of six two to three story houses grouped around a central raised courtyard sitting on top of the multi-purpose community hall and surrounded by communal gardens. On their website the community points out that “the buildings’ footprint occupies less than half the total area of the site” which is a “much lower density than would have been financially viable for a commercial property developer.”34 Intention The original project group got together in 2009 when former neighbours (now residents) saw the project site go up for sale. After a few weeks of searching for more members, they founded a company and bought the site which was still occupied by some abandoned buildings.

Apart from the intention of wanting to live together and securing safe housing in the area, this project was mostly sparked by the opportunity which presented itself in form of the lot being for sale.

Building structure The size of the community gives a very personal feel to the whole complex. Buildings are sunk 1.2m into the ground, enabling them to rise to only 2 - 2.5 stories. The average height is thus also much lower compared

Research

to surrounding buildings. The chosen materiality lends warm colors to the central courtyard and binds the houses together. Spatial dimensions are very carefully chosen and promote intimate community life while openings directly facing the central courtyard remain rather small and emphasize on the importance of privacy. Other openings such as private balconies or loggias do have visual contact with the central yard, although in a restricted way. Notably, the access to the building site is made via a dead end which is almost too tight for cars to enter. On site, no parking space is provided for residents vehicles following a central principle of Cohousing. The building arrangement needed to answer to the fact that one of the corners of the site would always be in the north.

The architects thus went on to explore and balance the advantages and disbenefits of each house with the other.

Sharing / Community spaces Internal communal space is organized below the central courtyard. Five out of six houses have direct internal access to the community hall, from where the laundry room, a small workshop, shower and bathroom can be reached. Shared gardens surround the building complex along the perimeter of the lot. About the planning process, architect Simon Henley remembers it was necessary to judge the „extent to which they are private and individual. It‘s not about forced communality, but allowing people to share if they want to.“35 Organization The site and common parts are owned by a company founded by the residents as a freehold. Individual houses are owned on „999 year leases by leaseholders who are also ‚directors‘ of the company“.34 While the community meets on a monthly basis to sort out common business, they do not have meals together. Following the construction process, the residents feel like that having gone through so many decisions and group work together, now they have the skillset to be great neighbours.

Copper lane

34 anon (n.d.) Copper Lane Cohousing - project history, https://copperlanecohousing.wordpress.com/ scheme, accessed 28 May 2019

35 Moore, R. (2014) Copper Lane review – an appealing, harmonious, cost-effective model for communal living, https://www.theguardian. com/artanddesign/2014/aug/31/ copper-lane-review-cohousing-stoke-newington-henley-halebrown-rorrison, accessed 28 May 2019

Sofielunds Malmö

P

P

Copper Lane, settlement layout

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

31

Bofællesskabet Æblevangen, Greater Copenhagen

open yard inside the settlement, Simon J Flender

Tenure scheme ownership Access scheme direct access Completion 1980 Shared facilities common house with „sports hall“, kitchen, two dining rooms, laundry room

Community size 36 units, approx. 100 residents Residential density 21 du/ha

32

Æblevangen is a well-functioning community located in Greater Copenhagen about 20 km or 40 minutes on the metro north of the center. The process leading up to the Cohousing was started in 1977 when a group of initiators advertised the forming of a community to the wider public. 36 households are clustered around the central common house in 18 split-level duplex houses all of which are privately owned. Dwellings vary in sizes with single units having been modified over the years.

Type A: 9 buildings. 86 m2 living space, 36 m2 basement. Type B: 12 buildings. 112 m2 living space, 36 m2 basement. Type C: 15 buildings. 130 m2 living space, 56 m2 basement. The houses feature split levels creating more private areas within them while still keeping to the horizontal structure of the community. They were by designed Danish architect and Cohousing visionary Jan Gudmand-Høyer. Æblevangens most prominent feature is the strict horizontality of the whole settlement which still manages to keep a high density with very intimate spaces between the buildings. Unlike other Co-housing communities offering a central open yard, here the arrangement of the buildings create many smaller spaces differing in size and proportion.

These offer a more human scale and promote close contact between direct neighbours which also reflects in the different dining groups. The number and variety of outdoor areas also allow for many different activities to be ongoing at the same time. However, it could be argued that the spatial layout is not the most democratic meaning that the community will hardly ever gather in the same space between the buildings or

Research

communicate across the same space. However, there are bigger spaces on the community plot that are not enclosed by buildings and could be used for such gatherings.

Community spaces & sharing The common house is approx. 600 m2 in size and equipped with an industrial kitchen, two dining rooms and a laundry room. Dinner is prepared on weekdays by dining groups. Additional Sunday dinners are held by smaller groups within the community. A big hall can turn into a gym for kids to play in when the weather is bad or for adults to practice yoga on certain evenings. It is also used for gatherings like parties or meetings. The community takes care of most maintenance and cleaning regarding the settlement. Other duties include keeping the lake in good shape and servicing the communal gardens. However, every household is able to secure an outside area for a private kitchen garden which then must be maintained independently.

Partnership agreement The founding members signed up for a partnership agreement in 1977 with the purpose to acquire a property and subsequently build 36 single family homes and two communal houses. After construction was finished, the last residents moved in 1980. About 75% of the land including the lake is owned commonly by the community. In case a house needs to be sold there is no selling procedure required by the community, instead the community assumes that only those who are interested in living communally would buy a house in Æblevangen. However, there is a list of interested buyers which the seller should approach first.

Æblevangen, settlement layout

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

33

Ecovillage Munksøgård, Roskilde

youth housing cluster with common house on the right, Simon J Flender

Tenure scheme rental, ownership, shared equity Access scheme direct access & outdoor staircases Completion 2000 Shared facilities one common house/cluster (community room, kitchen, laundry, bathroom), waste management system, open closet, central heating system, old barn with eco-shop, bicycle repair shop, storage, stables Community size 100 households, 230 residents Residential density 12,5 du/ha

34

Munksøgård Ecovillage is located about four km east of the center of Roskilde. The settlement consists of five clusters of two-story row houses arranged around an old barn, each complemented with a common house. The buildings are uniform in their nature but each cluster is given its own identity through differing coloring of the facade cladding or material. A central car parking at the entrance to the community keeps all motorized traffic outside the perimeter. The access paths to the buildings are unpaved and give the neighbourhood somewhat of a village feeling.

Intention The central intention when forming the community was to create a development integrating environmentally sustainable technologies and practices in construction and operation. At the same time creating strong community ties was a high priority for the residents. While the central intention presents the glue that binds the community together, many other aspects of the settlement are quite diverse. Some of the five housing clusters are specifically dedicated to families, seniors and to youth. Housing clusters furthermore vary in unit size and ownership types thus promoting diversity among the residents.

Project organization & building structure The project was developed by the association of future tenants who occupy about 20 privately owned units and by the housing association of Roskilde who was responsible for the remaining 80 units. There-

Research

fore clusters are also different in tenure scheme which ranges from privately owned units to rental units and one cluster which is run by a cooperative housing association. Each of the housing groups (clusters) have their own set of rules practicing participatory democracy.

The clusters consist of 20 - 30 units which are fit into three buildings grouped in a U-shape around a yard. The open side is taken up by a common house. Additional functions on the plot are taken up by farming activities, a lake and the barn.

Community & sharing All housing clusters are arranged around an old barn which presents the center piece for the whole community. The building houses stables which are used to provide winter quarters for the communities horses and to store bicycles during the rest of the year. The central facilities furthermore feature a small eco-shop which opens a few hours every day and a community cafe open on Sundays granting possibilities to exchange to residents from different clusters. There is also space for a bicycle repair shop and an open closet, where residents can donate and find things. The attic of the barn provides additional storage space.

Munksøgård Ecovillage is trying its best to be environmentally sustainable with solar panels, central wood pellet heating and a car sharing scheme. In addition, the community applied for smaller parking spaces than meet the regulations in order to save a neighbouring small forest which would have become victim to the parking lot. Bikes can also be stored in sheltered outbuildings which are allocated to the housing clusters. Another important topic for the community is separation of trash including human waste. Urine is collected in tanks from where it is directed to non-edible plants in the gardens. Solid waste is filtered through a sand filter and small rocks using bacteria after which it can pass the authorities test and be released into a nearby stream.36 All residents are organized in work-groups to realize various tasks such as snow-clearing and maintaining of roads. Other groups work on the operation of the waste water treatment and central heating plants. The common houses which are mostly used for joint activities such as dinners, meetings or parties also feature laundry rooms.

36 Wilkinson, G. (2015.) Munksøgård: A Model village - a Village of different models, https://4allsentientbeings. wordpress.com/2015/05/20/munksogard-a-model-village-a-village-of-different-models/, accessed 28 May 2019

Sofielunds Kollektivhuset

Ecovillage Munksögard

P

Munksøgård, settlement layout

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

35

BofĂŚllesskabet Lange Eng, Greater Copenhagen

central courtyard of Lange Eng, newspitalfields.wordpress.com

Tenure scheme ownership Access scheme direct access & outdoor staircases Completion 2009 Shared facilities integrated community house,industrial-sized kitchen, dining hall, play areas, lounge, cafĂŠ, cinema, garden with playgrounds, campfire & private patios Community size 54 apartments, over 200 residents Residential density 39 du/ha

36

The cohousing community Lange Eng is located in the suburb Albertslund west of Copenhagen. Dorte Mandrup architects developed this block perimeter structure for a group that had started talks about living communally in 2004. After holding info-meetings and organizing itself in different work groups, the group managed to bring more people to commit financially and bought the plot in 2006. The construction and planning period held a lot of hassle for the group with bankruptcy on the part of several partners.37 Project organization The intention of the group was built around a group of friends who played around with the idea of living together. First they did not know exactly how that would be and had not learned how to deal with disagreement. Monthly meetings gave them the structure they needed to talk about values and draw on first ideas how the community could look like.

Building structure The center piece of Lange Eng community is the big open yard almost fully enclosed by surrounding private units distributed on two to three levels. Two narrow gaps in the enclosing structure give way to enter the interior yard, which remains very private to the outside and very public to the community. Private units are accessed from a surrounding walkway on the outside of the development. The character of the building is very different on its both sides: narrow windows and doors

Research

close the apartments off to the outside while big openings and terrace doors blend apartment-space with the courtyard. The building also distinguishes inside from outside through use of materiality. While the ouside is clad in dark wood, bright polycarbonate is used as panelling on the facade facing the garden. Most apartments are organized on two levels making it so, that no family has another one living above. Sizes range from 72 to 135 m2.

Community & sharing Apart from the central yard which makes the main sharing point for the community, the communal house is where most communal functions are located. The spaces are integrated in the building fabric and are located at the side of the south entry. An industrial sized kitchen, playroom and dining space for more than one hundred people are arranged on the first floor. The second floor offers a twenty-seat screening room, event room, multi-purpose spaces, storage places, mini football, cafe, bar, music and computing rooms. In winter most activities take place in the communal house.38 One of the outer corners of the building hosts a bike workshop and storage space which residents can book if needed.

All residents are organized in work groups dealing with different matters ranging from construction & technology to an outside group, a ministry of culture or a childrens ministry.39 Meals Common meals have been identified by the community as an important motor of communal spirit and are prepared five to six times a week by the respective group on duty. Residents sign up for meals the days before and between 6pm and 6.10pm take-aways can be picked up. Every household is on duty for dinner three times every five weeks for meals costing a family of four about 3.500 DKK per month. The community has figured out that the cooking team should also be responsible for cleaning up afterwards in order to reduce the mess produce while cooking.40

Lange Eng Albertslund

37 Fraas, S. (n.d..) Lange Eng historie, https://www.langeeng.dk/fakta/ historie/, accessed 31 May 2019

38 Theodorou, M. (2015) Lange Eng Collective Living, https://www.langeeng.dk/fakta/historie/, accessed 31 May 2019

39 anon (n.d.) Lange Eng daily operation, https://www.langeeng. dk/fakta/organisering/, accessed 31 May 2019

40 Wilkinson, G. (2015) Lange Eng Cohousing community, https://4allsentientbeings.wordpress.

Ecovillage Munksรถgard com/2015/05/15/scotland-to-denmark/, accessed 31 May 2019

P P

Lange Eng, settlement layout

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

37

Density analysis

Units

Plot size Residential density

Sofielunds Kollektivhuset, Malmö

45 du

0,2 ha

225 du/ha

Copper Lane, London

6 du

0,1 ha

60 du/ha

Lange Eng, Greater Copenhagen

54 du

1,4 ha

39 du/ha

Æblevangen, Greater Copenhagen

36 du

1,75 ha

21 du/ha

Munksøgård Ecovillage, Roskilde

100 du

8 ha

12,5 du/ha

suburban/ rural

Project

urban

As seen in the above analysis of different cohousing projects, size and residential density varies greatly between projects depending on context, building typology and community intention. Numbers of residents can certainly be put in relation to a plot size after a project has been completed. However it is almost impossible for planners to know how many residents exactly will be living in a building project. Residential density is therefore the parameter getting as close to reality as possible. It is measured in dwelling units (du) per hectare (ha) and used in the below-noted chart to put the above seen projects in relation to each other.

The difference between dense urban communities and rather suburban or even rural communities shows in the residential density as well as in the plot size. Urban collectives need to work with comparably smaller plots and will need higher densities in order to achieve affordability for its residents. In suburban areas communities can afford lower densities resulting in more open space to be used by residents since bigger plots can be secured and land prices are not as high as in central city locations. Collectives in rural areas like the Munksøgård Ecovillage can even afford running their own scheme in terms of agriculture and domestic animals which certainly requires a lot more space.

A definite relation between location (urban/rural) and community size can not be projected from this chart. However it is clear that a small project like Copper Lane with only six dwelling units remains the exception among the projects averaging at 48 units per project.

38

Research

Conclusion It is also clear that the projects shown in this section greatly differ in building typology and everything that comes with it. Access schemes and spatial layout of the building as well as the units will influence how residents interact with each other. Projects focus on different issues and thus employ different techniques of reaching their goals which enables the designer to learn from them and pick elements that could be used in other projects with similar goals.

Spatial setups of the projects also differ in the positioning and shaping of communal spaces which could be indoors as well as outside. It seems to be important to offer a good mix of both kinds of spaces to residents to encourage various communal activities in all sorts of weather conditions. Both intentional communal spaces such as dining or play rooms as well as spaces that temporarily could become micro-communal spaces, f.ex. an entrance zone where neighbours have a chat are important to strengthen ties between residents and thus critical for communal life in general.

It should also be noted that from experience literature sets a critical size of about twelve households for a resilient cohousing community in which it is possible that single households draw back at times.41 Certainly, Copper Lane does not reach this number and might therefore be seen as some exception to this rule. It is however also clear that Copper Lane has a much smaller focus on communal life offering much fewer communal spaces.

41 McCarmant, K. & Durrett, C. (2014). Creating Cohousing - Building Sustainable Communities. 3rd ed. New Society Publishers, p. 76

When I visited the cohousing projects I interviewed few of the residents that I came across around and in the building complexes. Talking with them gave me a better idea of the communal spirit in cohousing communities and how closely residents live together. I only talked with a handful of people which grants this observation only little empirical value, however, all residents seemed very pleased with their housing situation and told about the benefits of living in a community.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

39

40

Research

settlement typologies The above categorization of cohousing schemes has shown the variety in methods to approach and explain the phenomenon. As seen in architectural references and study visits, the settlement typology (meaning the spatial layout of building volumes) has a strong effect on community life. Not all typologies are suitable for all sites and contexts or for all communities. Some fit better with small communities while others are more appropriate in an urban context. Through the sketching of building volumes I am here analyzing different concepts and layouts and will examine their characteristics and possible effects they have on community life.

Typologies I identified are: - open circulation (classic Danish suburban model) - covered circulation (modified from the Danish model) - decentralised layout - block perimeter development - the urban block (developed from the Swedish model)

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

41

Open circulation (the Danish suburbian model) Volumetry The settlement features various buildings which are organized in a more or less straight way along the central circulation area. Depending on sun path, settlement and buildings are oriented and may vary in number of levels. Vertically stacked units are accessed through exterior staircases.

Communal spaces The common house is arranged at a central position and holds all of the communal spaces.

Access The central space is shaped as a semi-public street which is meant for walking and playing. Cars are kept outside the central area.

Density Medium residential density makes this typology fit for suburban areas.

Examples BofĂŚllesskabet Trudeslund, SĂŚttedammen, Sol og Vind

42

Research

Covered circulation Volumetry The building envelope stretches along the central circulation and wraps all functions into one building which through articulation shows different functions under one roof. The singular envelope is broken up at the edges to articulate different private units.

Communal spaces Parts of communal life could happen in the covered circulation street becoming a multi-functional shared space. The common house is included in the building envelope and sits centrally at the main entrance. Outside space is provided for and partly enclosed by the building volume.

Access A semi-public, covered circulation space connects all private units and shared facilities offering residents a feeling of being outside while weather conditions might not allow for it.

Density High medium residential density makes this typology fit for suburban or low density urban areas.

Examples Windsong Co-housing, BofĂŚllesskabet SavvĂŚrket Jystrup

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

43

decentralised layout Volumetry The settlement consists of seemingly chaotically spread out semi-detached, one to two level buildings while the common house is given a special status emphasized by its larger volumetry. The building layout provides bigger and smaller spaces between the buildings that can be used by smaller groups of residents and support various activities at the same time. This arrangement also promotes closer contact between direct neighbours while residents from different ends of the settlement might not see each other that often.

Communal spaces The common house hosts all communal spaces and sits at the center of the development marking its important position. The spaces between the buildings may also be considered communal with shared gardens.

Access All buildings are accessed by very narrow footpaths making it impossible for cars to enter the space between the buildings. Private units are exclusively accessed horizontally from the foot paths. All vertical access is kept within the dwelling units.

Density Medium residential density makes this typology fit for suburban areas.

Examples BofÌllesskabet Æblevangen

44

Research

block perimeter development Volumetry The building consists of a singular, connected envelope which houses all functions. The building height is between two and three levels, but this typology might also work in on an urban scale filling up an entire block. Through its volumetry, the building focuses very strongly on the democratic central space which may be used by all residents.

Communal spaces Apart from the enclosed central open area, other communal areas may be located at the corner positions which are usually hard to use for housing. Additionally, one edge of the rectangle is used for a variety of communal spaces.

Access The central space is accessed through two small openings in the building envelope and thus sheltered and inward-focusing. Dwelling units are accessed from the exterior and some of them feature exterior staircases to the central yard. There are no cars on the inside.

Density High medium residential density makes this typology fit for suburban areas or urban areas with lower density.

Examples BofĂŚllesskabet Lange Eng, Kalkbreite Zurich

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

45

Urban block Volumetry The urban block typology features compactness and is mostly found in areas with high residential density. The building envelope is a single volume which houses all functions. In some settlements, there is a combination of two or more urban blocks forming the cohousing community.

Communal spaces Rather public shared facilities or those that may be shared with members of the public are mostly arranged at the ground floor. The spaces that are meant to be of exclusive use to the house community may rather be situated at the top floor.

Access Private units are accessed through exterior balconies and exterior staircases or through internal vertical access and corridor or a combination of both. This type of building mostly features internal elevators.

Density The high residential density offers cost-effective building reducing cost for the individual unit and shared facilities. This is why this type of building is mostly found in central urban areas with high land prices.

Examples R50 Berlin, Sofielunds Kollektivhuset Malmรถ, Spreefeld Berlin

46

Research

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

47

48

Research

space programme When designing the space programme (analogue to a room programme, but focused on spaces and their sequence) of a cohousing scheme, much care needs to be placed on the private unit in relation to communal spaces. In contrast to earlier days of humanity, when communal life was not a choice but a necessity, we are now members of a highly individualised society. We cannot be transformed into being collective members of an intentional group only by moving into a settlement with other residents. The process before and after the actual act of moving is very important in becoming a member of said community. But even so, residents will want to retain a certain degree of individuality and autonomy over decisions affecting their life. In order for community life to flourish, individuals need to be able to retreat into their private zone to temporarily detach themselves from the otherwise all too present community life. Even presuming that community members have chosen the cohousing community, they will still want to step outside the communal spaces sometime. Being able to do so will also help emphasize the benefits of living in a community since this allows residents to experience a change of perspective. From here, Studio Weave developed the concept called “spheres of sharing”, which I developed further into an architectural space programme (see below). Central to this idea is the increasing number of people using a space outwards from the center.

bike parking car parking workshop technical room

guest room

work spaces

storage outside storage

gym kitchen bedroom

unit living room bedroom(s)

community kitchen

hen house

laundry room room for child care

multi-purpose hall garden

green house

Some spaces of the private sphere hold a key function in exerting social control and visual connection over communal grounds such as the garden. Having “eyes on the ground” can enable the communal garden to be open to neighbours outside the cohousing community as well since it will be self-policed by residents being. Arranging spaces of the private unit in which residents spend much time facing the shared outdoor areas will help to socially control it. Outdoor spaces afford as many opportunities as the community imagines there to be and the space allows. Planning with a partly unprogrammed space might then create a stage for community life to unfold in many possible ways. However the open space can certainly also feature more programmed purposes.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

49

2

analysis Location Site Survey Problems & strategies Weather

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

51

Location

42 anon (n.d.) Iceland, https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland, accessed 2 September 2019

Iceland is a very sparsely populated country located in the North Atlantic sea. While most people live in Reykjavík, other cities and villages exist along the ring road encircling the island completely. The central, uninhabited area is called “high lands” and characterized by sand and lava fields. The country is active in regards to volcanoes and is being warmed by the gulf stream with marine influences and high latitude giving most of the island a tundra climate.42

arctic circle 66°33‘47.7“

equator 0°

While most travellers going in and out come through the international airport in Keflavík about 50 km from Reykjavík, there is also a ferry arriving at Seyðisfjörður in east Iceland. The Icelandic economy is built around three main sectors which are fishing, the production of aluminum and tourism. There are other important economies such as digital commerce and banking as well.

43 anon (n.d.) History of Iceland, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_ of_Iceland, accessed 19 August 2019

52

National history In 930 Icelands parliament, the Alþingi, was founded and constituted the Icelandic Commonwealth. Today, it is the worlds longest-running parliament. In early 13th century, Iceland underwent a period of civil war which ultimately brought the Commonwealth to its end and led to Iceland being united with Norway in an agreement called “Old Covenant” made between 1262–1264. Eventually all of the Nordic states were united in one alliance, the Kalmar Union in 1397. On its dissolution in 1523 Iceland fell under Danish rule and was negatively impacted by the subsequent Danish-Icelandic Trade Monopoly causing general poverty throughout the country. When the Laki volcano erupted in 1783 the consequences were grave for the Icelandic population and caused it to decline by 20 - 25%.43 After World War I Iceland regained autonomy as the Kingdom of Iceland but still shared Danish monarchy. During World War

Analysis

II Iceland remained neutral and was preemptively peacefully occupied

by British forces who were succeeded by a United States occupational force. In 1944 Iceland proclaimed itself independent from Denmark which was at the time still under German occupation. During the war, Iceland had been able to economically thrive and fulfill demands of fish to feed allied armies in Europe. Compared to the population, Iceland received very high support through Marshall Plan which was invested in modernizing the fishing fleet as well as agriculture industries.

Iceland became a member of NATO in 1949 and also joined the European Economic Area (EEA) in 1994 leading to economic stability and constant growth up until the 2008 financial crisis deeply rupturing Icelandic society with many Icelanders losing employment and real estate ownership.

The eruption of local volcano Eyjafjallajökull in 2010 which stopped air traffic across Europe for multiple days has placed Iceland on the map

arctic circle

(66°33‘)

Seyðisfjörður main passenger ferry port

Reykjavík capital region

Keflavík international airport

for tourists seeking to explore the countries nature and geologic idiocracies. In 2018 the steep increase in tourist numbers year after year culminated in a volume outnumbering the Icelandic population by more than six times.44 This development naturally led to changes affecting commercial structures, real estate development and the housing market. I will go into detail about the problems later on in the report.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

44 Icelandic Tourist Board (2018) Numbers of foreign visitors, https:// www.ferdamalastofa.is/en/recearch-and-statistics/numbers-of-foreign-visitors, accessed 19 August 2019

53

45 anon (2019) Iceland: Major Urban Settlements, http://citypopulation. de/Iceland-UA.html, accessed 8 August 2019

History of Reykjavík Reykjavík is the capital and by far most populous city of Iceland. As of January 2019 the city is inhabited by 128,793. Together with the municipalities of Kópavogur, Seltjarnarnes, Garðabær and Hafnarfjörður it compiles the Capital Region (or: Greater Reykjavík) with a population of 228,231 making up about two thirds of the countries population.45 It is the center for most cultural, commercial, governmental and educational activity in the country. Reykjavík received its name translating to “smoky bay” by the first people to settle there in 874. The city is located in the south-western region of the country.

center

Reykjávik in 1876

The town of Reykjavík had for most of its history been a collection of farmsteads on the peninsula with its population first rising over 5.000 around 1900. In late 19th century, the population started to grow due to Reykjavík becoming the national center for an independent nation with many official functions and educational facilities being moved to or founded in the city. After a devastating fire in the city center in 1915 new building laws were introduced which had wooden structures banned from the center. In the following year the first book about city planning in Iceland was published by medical professor Guðmundur Hannesson.

The ideas presented were influenced by the Garden City Movement and aimed at creating a healthy city by re-introducing nature into the city while focusing on aligning the street grid with sunlight exposure. A first urban plan was made law in 1921 but proved too short sighted in regards of the population development when seven years after its creation, architects had to plan new districts outside Hringbraut, the road meant to be encircling the city. The British occupation of Iceland, which was later overtaken by US forces, intended to prevent the Germans from doing so, brought with it more change for Reykjavík. The number

54

Analysis

Reykjavík 1876

of allied soldiers deployed in Reykjavík amounted to about the same as the local population. The economy however could greatly profit of providing fish for allied armies in Europe. Apart from the construction of barracks, paved roads and the domestic airport in Reykjavík the occupation also meant the creation of jobs causing another big influx of work force into the city. This amounted to a 60 % increase in population from 1940 to 1960 and certainly created a demand for more dwelling units to house the newly arrived.46

46 Jónsdóttir, G. (2011) How Reykjavík Got To Be What It Is, https://grapevine.is/mag/articles/2011/10/13/howreykjavikgottobewhatitis/, accessed 20 August 2019

Reykjavik population development 118.326 111.345

97.569

81.693

83.766

72.407

56.251

38.196 28.304 17.679 11.600

10 20

00 20

90 19

80 19

70

19

60 19

50 19

40

19

30 19

20

90 18

19

70 18

10 19

17

5.802

00 19

2.024

86

127

3.706

Population development in Reykjavík city by year

A new city plan was drafted up in 1948 and although it was not officially approved it was used as basis for the cities development. A number of factors such as the new airport, swampy or otherwise unfit ground and certainly the exposed location on a peninsula caused the city to mainly grow eastwards. Dominant house types in new residential districts were town houses with two to four flats although a few high rise apartment buildings were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s.47 A new comprehensive plan was developed by Danish experts after a city council in 1960. In 1965 they submitted the proposal introducing the systematic planning approach to Iceland.48 According to principles of zoning, areas were defined for singular use. After previous attempts to implement a light-rail public transport system, the private car was now granted special privilege as primary

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

47 Precedo, P. (2009) Social connection and urban fabric in Reykjavík at the dawn of the global economic downturn 48 Reynarsson, Bjarni (1999) The planning of Reykjavik, Iceland: Three ideological waves- a historical overview, Planning Perspectives, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp.49 - 67

55

49 Valsson, T. (2003) Planning in Iceland - From the settlement to present times, University of Iceland Press

way of personal transportation as stated in the comprehensive plan: “As much recognition as possible should be given to the desire of the people to possess their own car and to be able go themselves wherever they want.”49 Many commercial stakeholders then left the city center to be accommodated where they could better cater to the transport patterns of their clients. The shift of activities away from the center also intensified the growth of segregated detached neighbourhoods

1908

50 City of Reykjavík (2014) Reykjavík Municipal Plan 2010-2030 p.10

1945

supporting and necessitating the use of the personal car. The comprehensive plan encouraged the development of the first real suburbs Árbær (1965 – 1970) and Breiðholt (1967 – 1982) which were subsequently constructed. The new suburbs were not planned to be diverse in use and apart of grocery or fast food stores and gasoline stations mostly consisted of residential buildings thus not creating any jobs close to where people live. Compared to denser typologies the mostly used single family detached houses were expensive to construct and maintain in terms of public infrastructure like roads, sewage and electricity Since then, several other areas have been defined as building land for citizens and built up as the neighbourhoods Grafarvogur, Úlfarsárdalur and Grafarholt which was developed after an open competition for its planning. In recent years, many architects in Iceland as well as the municipal plan for Reykjavík are aware of issues connected to low density and urban sprawl being high cost and land-use ratio, increased traffic volumes and pollution, increased obesity and so forth. Today, Reykjavík has embraced its new general plan being valid from 2010 to 2030. Taking into consideration the issues stated above, the general plan sets out for “90% of new residential units to be developed within the current urban area”50 including the transformation of the land now covered by the airport.

Housing generally creates the framework in which people live and dictates conditions for several aspects of communal life. Wether neighbours engage in smalltalk or know a person a couple of houses down the road depends greatly on the form of housing. In Iceland the detached house is a prominent typology in many neighbourhoods. Residents mostly drive their personal car up to the garage after which they enter

56

Analysis

the house. Houses are secluded from neighbouring dwellings, so built structure and behavioural habits don’t afford much social interaction.

Additionally, weather conditions are harsh and often make being outside an unpleasant experience. Townhouses with one apartment per floor and multi-family buildings with two or three apartments per storey are also often found. Common to all types is the notion of retreat to the private sphere and affordance of very little social interaction.

1975

1989

ReykjĂĄvik in 2017 with streets

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

57

Site The project site is located in an area called Vatnsmýri (en: water swamp) on the southern half of the Reykjavík peninsula in close proximity to the city center and many functions. It borders with the University District in the west, and with the city highway Hringbraut in the north. In the east, it’s border is marked by the hill Öskjuhlið and to the south it is confined by the fjord Skerjaförður. In present day most of Vatnsmýri is covered by the Reykjavík Domestic Airport (RKV).

51 City of Reykjavík (2013) Aðalskipulag Reykjavíkur, Part B, p.244ff.

Due to its very central location as well as other reasons such as problems with urban sprawl, housing backlog and lack of available space for development of new neighbourhoods, the City of Reykjavík is challenging the function and space-uptake of the airport. Its closure during the current Municipal Plan (2010 - 2030) is being assumed by the city.51 The airport is covering about 140 ha. of very centrally situated land and is mostly used for domestic flights or flights to Greenland. Additionally, it is used for pilot training, recreational flights and medical flights to Landspitali, the university hospital. However, the development of the area proves to be difficult as there are several stakeholders with opposing interests such as the City of Reykjavík, State of Iceland and Icelandair Group.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

58

Skerjafjörður bay Skerjafjörður neighbourhood Háskólabíó (cinema) Hotel Radisson University of Iceland Nordic house, culture Tjörnin, lake Downtown Hallgrimskirkja Reykjavík domestic airport BSÍ bus station, transfer to int. airport Landspitali, university hospital Perlan, museum & viewpoint University of Reykjavík (not existent in image yet) Nauthólsvík, geothermal beach

Analysis

2

2

1

2km

6

2

3

6

5

Vatnsmýri

4

1km 1

7

project site

8 1

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

9

59

the site as seen from east

the site as seen from west

the site as seen from north-west

60

Analysis

In 2008, British architecture company Graeme Massie won the competition for a new urban plan for the area which heavily relies on block perimeter development alongside main lines of sight. The architects also realize that a development of this size will require new commercial and public infrastructure.

A new competition was held in 2017 in order to realize the removal and redevelopment of the smallest of three runways of the local airport. It was won by Reykjavík based studio ask arkitektar who are continuing to work with the design in order to embed it in the local detail plan.

I have used plans and images from the competition entry which ask arkitektar have provided me with as framework for project site and surroundings of this master thesis. Chronologically the project designed within the thesis is situated in near future in the understanding that a cohousing project in Iceland could take part in the new Skerjafjörður development. Therefore parts of the urban plan by Graeme Massie are regarded as later stage in the development of the Vatnsmýri area.

first prize in competition for new urban plan for Vatnsmýri, Graeme Massie architects

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

61

first prize in competition for extension of Skerjafjörður neighbourhood, ask arkitektar

With the volumetric arrangement, as well as Graeme Massie, ask arkitektar are proposing a block perimeter structure, albeit with a very porous border. The resulting courtyards offer enough room to insert additional townhouses which gives them a relatively public character.

This is reinforced by public walking paths crossing the courtyards creating a slight confusion in terms of privacy or to be precise, where front and back of the block perimeter buildings are. The buildings feature an average of two to three with at times up to five floors. The street grid connects to the existing Skerjafjörður neighbourhood and mostly creates long, linear streets. The architects have planned dedicated parking garages (bílahús) at the commercial sub-center provided in the middle of the new development and push for less parking spaces in favor of a higher density. This is a step forward compared to other neighbourhoods in Reykjavík although an average street section between the buildings is still rather wide at about 17 meters. Parking as well as minimum dimensions for cycling and walking paths might make this a necessity, but local weather conditions and high wind speeds might render it difficult to enjoy being out on the street, especially when their linear nature favours the creation of wind-tunnels.

The competition entry secures public access to the waterfront of Skerjafjörður and envisions the outflow of Vatnsmýri as a green recreational area with smaller ponds and trees. It is also important to notice the possibility of a new marina as well as the connection across Sker-

62

Analysis

current state of planning, ask arkitektar

jafjörður over to the Kársnes peninsula being implemented in the site plan. Although restricted to unmotorized traffic and public transport, this connection will give the project area much more importance as high numbers of commuters will use this shortcut to the southern suburban areas. The new express bus system Borgarlínan (city line) aimed at increasing the number of commuters using public transport and increasing connectivity will likewise pass the project area. Its course will change after the complete removal of the airport.

perspective for competition, ask arkitektar

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

63

64

Analysis

Survey The survey titled “Cohousing in Reykjavík” was conducted within the thesis research in order to achieve a clearer picture when discussing cohousing in an Icelandic context. It was published for citizens of Reykjavík in several facebook groups. Furthermore, I have personally sent out invitations through private messages and e-mails to friends and acquaintances and encouraged them to take the survey themselves and forward invitations to people possibly interested.

As potential participants might not have knowledge about collective housing and cohousing in detail itself, I included a short introduction on the topic with a link to an explanatory video. This way, even if participants had never heard about cohousing, they could possibly answer the survey. Within eleven days, the survey yielded 55 responses. To begin with, participants were asked general questions about gender, nationality, age and household size to be able to categorize how opinions would vary between user groups. The questions were asked in single- and multiple-choice way as well as requesting participants to type in answers.

The following diagrams were created based on data gathered from survey results and show absolute numbers of answers unless indicated otherwise by a percentage icon. Questions have been inspired by a survey named “One shared house 2030 - A collaborative survey around co-living”52 carried out by Copenhagen based research institute Space 10. After each question I will explain the mode in which the question was posed to participants in order to be able to interpret results more precisely. Alongside the data I will interpret the results and explain what I learned about the user group and which conclusions I drew for the project design.

52 Space 10 (2018) One shared house 2030 - A collaborative survey around co-living, https://space10.io/ project/one-shared-house-2030/

The survey was published in the following facebook groups: - “Byggingasamtökin Miðgarður” (217 members) A group consisting of mostly Icelandic nationals who are interested in cohousing. The administration and inner circle of the group is actively working on a cohousing project.

- “Samtök um bíllausan lífstíl” (3.900 members) A group mostly focused on a car-free lifestyle and concerned with environmental issues.

- “Away from home, living in Iceland” (19.000 members) A general purpose group of immigrants and expatriates living in Iceland on a long-term.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

65

0% no information

Age

How old are you?

Participant Details

17 and below

Participant details

0

18 - 24

3

25 - 30

14

30 - 39

By chance the 55 participants of the survey were evenly distributed between Icelandic and other nationalities. Noticeably, more women were interested in the survey making up two thirds of the participants. 92% Gender of participants were in the age of a professional worker, that is between What is your gender?

Household size 25 and 59. The core of participants consists in the age group of 30 to 39, which is where one might17% have malestarted or plan to start a family and think 36% about which way of living is female best. It is the period of settling down in life, 0% no information buying real estate and making big decisions. I grouped the participants according to household size to be able to find out which potentials singles/couples and families see in cohousing. 15% of participants live in single households, while 18% live in a household of two. The majority of 67% live in households of three to Household five and more persons. From this, size I concluded that families are the target group showing most interest Age for cohousing indetails Iceland. Most participants agree that an urban context Participant How old are you?

(54%) would be the ideal location for a cohousing, although the suburb (44%) is also an option. Only 2% think that the countryside would be an 0 option.

40 - 59

26

11

60 and above

1

What is the current size of your household?

15% 18% 36% 22% 9%

1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5 and more

What is the current size of your household?

1 person

8

2 persons

10

3 persons

20

4 persons

17 and below 18 - 24

12

5 and more

Gender

3

details What is your gender?

25 - 30 Participant

14

30 - 39

Gender

Nationality

40 - 59

What is your gender?

What is your gender?

Gender

60 and above

5

1

17% male

17% male Nationality (single What is your 11 What is your nationality?

36%choice) female 0% no information

26

nationality? (single choice) 51% Icelandic 49% Other

36% female 68% female 0% no information 32% male 0% no information

51% Icelandic 49% other

Age

How old are you?

17 and below 18 - 24 25 - 30

Household size Age 0 Age What is the current size of your household?

17 and below

60 and above

0

15% 18% 36% 22% 9%

11 1

18 - 24

3

25 - 30 30 - 39

What is the best location for a Co-housing project in Iceland?

14

30 - 39 40 - 59

Location

3 How old areare you?you? (single choice) How old

26

Household size

What is the current size of your household?

40 - 59 60 and above

54% city 44% suburb 2% countryside

26 1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5 and more 14

15% 18% 36% 22% 9%

1

Community

11

1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5 and more

How many people could you imagine living in a community with?

4 - 10

17

10 - 25

23

25 - 50

6

50 - 100 100 +

2 0

Household sizesize Household

What is the current size of your household?

Household size What is theyourcurrent size of your household? (single choice) What is the current size ofsize household?

Household 1 person 1 person

What is the current size of your household?

8 8

2 persons

Advantages

What do you think are the biggeste advantages of Co-housing?

10

3 persons 2 persons 4 persons

12

3 persons 5 and more

5

4 persons 5 and more

15% 18% 36% 22% 9%

20 10 1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 12 5 and more

37

20 28 26

5

22

21

Nationality

14

What is your nationality?

66

23

51% Icelandic 49% Other

Analysis

24

1 person

8

2 persons

10

3 persons

20

4 persons

12

5 and more

5

Community size Community

How many people could you imagine in a community with?

How many people could youliving imagine living in a community with? (single choice)

4 - 10

Nationality

10 - 25

6

50 - 100

4 - 10 10 - 25 25 - 50

2 0

Generally, people feel more drawn to living in minor communities of 4 – 10 (36%) or 10 – 25 people (48%). Compared to f.ex. Danish cohousing Location What is the best location for a Co-housing in Iceland? house 300 residents, these numbers seem schemes which canprojecteasily very small and one can argue if a community of only 4 – 10 justifies to be 54% city Advantages 44% suburb called “cohousing”.

Research concerning the size of the community has 2% biggeste countryside advantages of Co-housing?

What do you think are the also shown that there is a critical size of about twelve households, from which on community life really flourishes.53 Assuming the average house37 hold size of 2,9 shown in this study, twelve households would roughly relate to an amount of 35 people. A debate on the size of the community would have to be had but the favoured amount of 10 - 25 might still be Community How many people could imagine living a community stability with? too little in you terms ofinsocial and affordability concerning commu28 reason participants are not nal facilities. I take from this that for some 17 very26fond of the idea of living with 25 - 50 people (12%) or even more 23 6 (4%) which could prove difficult when envisioning larger communities. 24

50 - 100 100 +

23

51% Icelandic 49% Other

25 - 50

100 +

17

What is your nationality?

2

22

21

0

53 McCarmant, K. & Durrett, C. (2014). Creating Cohousing - Building Sustainable Communities. 3rd ed. New Society Publishers, p. 76

23

Advantages What do you think are the biggest advantages of cohousing? (multiple choice with at least one box 14 checked) Advantages

What do you think are the biggeste advantages of Co-housing?

37

28 26 22

21

23

24

e or

o st ay w

, ym op a g ksh ike or sl w rk or pe io le ng ud vi -st tip ha ga ul m yo to ss ce as ac are ng n to vi o nd ha mm ou co ar le op pe lp ng e vi r h ha k fo ity as un m om a c rk o ng w e vi de or ha tsi am ou in e ion om cat r h lo te e et iv t c st a b ra t co at g in ild bu g cin ng du tti k re ge c d bu an e st r th co o g gf tin an lit b e sp ore liz m cia so

m

14

, m p gy , o a ymkshop ike a gor sh s l ke w r k rk s li or wo pe rkio or ple g pue d io d ti ul ple viningst tu hahaovgaga-s o multi t m y yo ss tos ce ssea ac ce r as g acn aare d to n to vininmg o on hahaovmmm arouund c co le aro opple pe o lp g g peheelp vininor r h ity hahavk f fo un ity as ask m n m mu co m k a co or k e g g a w or or mre vininidee w hahauvtstsid in amo o ou e in ation om e cation r hhomlo ca ttetertivee lo st be et c tiv co t a a btrarac g os at att in g c ilddin bu il g bu ng g tti k cincin ge inguc du u d ett b k re red an ghe uc st andr t e b co st fo th g co g for tin g an g e lit ttin b an aliz spsploi rere b ci ze o m so iali m to soc ys to wa ys e wa or e m mor

Advantages

What do you think are the biggeste advantages of Co-housing? (icelandic nationals)

Participants agreed that splitting cost and getting more out of the investment (19%) was the primary reason to get involved with cohousing.

Advantages What do you think are the biggeste advantagesalso of Co-housing?

Many people would be interested in having a community outside (icelandic nationals)

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

67

4 - 10

17

10 - 25

23

25 - 50

6

50 - 100

2 e or

m

, ym op a g sh ke o r k s li w r k or pe g udio le vin -st ip ha ga ult m yo to ss ce as ac re g na to vin o nd ha mm ou co ar le op pe g elp vin r h y ha fo k it as un m om a c rk g wo e vin e or ha sid t am ou in e ion om cat r h lo te e et ctiv st a b tra co at g in ild bu g g cin du ttin k re ge c d bu an e s t r th co o g gf tin an lit b sp ore

0

m

100 +

o st ay w so

e liz cia

Advantages

What do you think are the biggeste advantages of Co-housing?

37

Advantages

What do you think are the biggeste advantages of Co-housing? (icelandic nationals)

work (14%). The rest of the options seem relatively equally popular, while having a better home in a more attractive location (7%) does not seem very important. Noticeably, this is especially so for Icelandic nationals. They also see less importance in having people around to ask for help, possibly because they would have access to that resource even without a cohousing community. For immigrants however, having a community outside work is especially important making it easier to find social contacts in a society which is built around tightly knit family networks. It should be noted that participants did not believe cohousing 28

26

22

21

23

24

14

, ym op a g sh ke ork s li w rk or pe g udio le vin -st ip ha ga ult m yo to ss ce as ac re g na to vin o nd ha mm ou co ar le op pe g elp vin r h ha k fo ity as un m om a c rk g wo e vin e or ha tsid am ou in e ion om cat r h lo te e et ctiv st ab a o r t c at g in ild bu g g cin du ttin k re ge c d bu an e st r th co o g gf tin an lit b e sp ore liz

e or

m

m

o st ay w

c so

ia

Advantages

What do you think are the biggeste advantages of Co-housing? (other nationalities)

Advantages

What do you think are the biggeste advantages of Co-housing? (icelandic nationals)

Icelandic nationals

other nationalities

Advantages

What do you think are the biggeste advantages of Co-housing? (other nationalities)

Concerns

What are your biggest concerns of living with others?

could reduce building cost much, which is corresponding with reality.

Cohousing is not necessarily a tool for building cheap housing, since many amenities like a common kitchen and dining room are added on top of the budget for the individual unit. Possibly, participants saw the opportunities a community could offer as an interesting return for their investment apart from splitting financial costs for shared amenities.

33

30

28

23

20

de

o ck

g kin up t li gro no e lly th ia in nt e te on po me s es so m ‘s ple eo n rp he he w ot ts en ur c um c rg s o l a nt n ia e nt em y o life te re om ily po isag on a d ut g d ll a tin fu c g pa in av s im t h ion no cis

la

In the follow-up question, participants could type out things they also see as advantages. Common child-care was mentioned by many participants, this might help in parts with the somewhat unsatisfying kindergarten-place and day-care availability in Reykjavík. Not only were participants watching over children together, they also saw the benefits of kids being able to play with friends who also live in the community.

Another big topic mentioned by participants was more environmentally sustainable living in smaller units, while sharing bigger common spaces. Growing vegetables, reducing overconsumption, possibilities of collaborating and co-working with other community members were other points mentioned. Participants also wished for workshops, an industrial kitchen, a recycling station, rental storage, bike storage and a room for get-togethers or celebrations. Many of these ideas can find their way into the building program, which will be used as foundation of the building design. ac riv fp

y

Concerns

What are your biggest concerns of living with others?

33

Concerns

What are your biggest concerns of living with others?

(Icelandic nationals: 56 points)

30

28

23

20

o ck

g kin up t li gro no e lly th ia in nt e te on po me s es so m ‘s ple eo en rp h he w ot ts en cur um c rg s o l a nt n ia e nt em y o life te re om ily po isag on a d ut g d ll a tin fu c g pa in av s im t h ion no ecis d y ac riv fp

la

o ck

g kin up t li gro no e lly th ia in nt e te on po me s es so m ‘s ple eo n rp he he w ot ts en ur c um c rg s o l a nt n ia e nt em y o life te re om ily po isag on a d ut g d ll a tin fu c g pa in av s im t h ion no ecis d y ac riv fp

la

In a follow-up question participants were asked to write down which other positive aspects of cohousing they could see. While some participants did not see any positive aspects others commented on a higher accountability in housing prices as in kind of a housing union.

Concerns

What are your biggest concerns of living with others?

(Icelandic nationals: 56 points)

68

Concerns

What are your biggest concerns of living with others? (other nationals: 78 points)

Analysis

Advantages

What do you think are the biggeste advantages of Co-housing? (other nationalities)

Others specifically talked about the huge benefits for immigrants when it comes to meeting new people and tackling simple tasks which feel “huge and inaccessible” to them. Furthermore, bringing up children in a “shared, not isolated environment” and the “possibility of collaborating with other members” and a generally new way of living was mentioned.

Participants seemed interested about the idea of a “wider and more diverse network”, reducing consumption and environmental factors in general. This also showed in the thought of living in smaller units while sharing bigger spaces where one can use shared amenities.

Concerns What are your biggest concerns when living with others?

Concerns (multiple choice with at least one box checked) What are your biggest concerns of living with others?

33 30 28

23 20

ng p iking oup t lliki grou no t e gr o ly n thhe y t ialall inin ntnti ee s toete oenon ess pop mem s m e soso e’ss m plle‘ n eeoop hene r pr p swwh hehe t r s ot ot ennt u me cccur guum ooc n arrg ttss n a n yono life iaial l ee ntnt eemm omy ilylife tete rere o g onomdaily pop saisga uttonngda di d ll aau ting fu ll acti g fu p ac ining immp avav ss i n toht hsisoion non edceici d y ac y riv vac f pf pri k ok o lac lac

When forming a cohousing community, special attention should be paid to concerns which future residents might hold. It is vital for the ensuing community to work out solutions and answers to present concerns. AlConcerns What are your biggest concerns of living with others? ternatively if no solution can be found, members of the group possibly (Icelandic nationals: 56 points) have to realize that either cohousing in general or the current group is not the right option for them. From the choices presented, the participants were mostly worried about having to deal with other people‘s mess (25 %). It is unclear how this concern could influence the architectural design of the building, or if the design could have influence on how residents would keep spaces tidy. Potential arguments (22 %) and lack of privacy (21 %) were the second most named concerns. Arguments as well as the personal mess are possibly issues that can best be resolved by a process manager in order to achieve a fruitful discussion culture or through house rules.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

69

r he p

i nt te po me so

ot

i nt te po isag d

of

av th no ecis d

ck la

Advantages

What do you think are the biggeste advantages of Co-housing? (other nationalities)

Concerns

What are your biggest concerns of living with others?

However, privacy is a very serious issue when designing a building based around levels of sharing. Having the possibility and freedom to retreat from the community into a private space is potentially very important for residents in order to be able to enjoy communal life. Private spaces should hence provide the possibility to step outside the community, to not be seen and disturbed. While more social spaces of the private unit like the entrance, kitchen or living room could be organized towards the courtyard and communal spaces, other spaces must be strictly private - even more so since many spaces are already semi-public. Bedrooms should therefore be arranged towards the outer perimeter of the lot or away from ground level. Alternatively, the area outside the windows can be provided with landscaping elements like shrubs or similar which prevent walking up directly to the window. Not having full autonomy on decisions (17 %) and potentially not liking someone in the group (15 %) are the least of participants concerns. Not having full autonomy is certainly something residents partly give up when joining the process of forming a cohousing community. On the other hand one could argue that joining such a community and its perks will release the individual or household from societal and financial limits and thus grant more autonomy. Furthermore, the extent to which the individual loses autonomy in group decisions strongly depends on the groups process of decision making which should work towards getting everyone on the same page and make clear the importance of everyone respecting the groups decision although it may not be unanimous.

33

30

28

23

20

g kin up t li gro no e lly th ia in nt e te on po me s es so m ‘s ple eo n rp he he w ot ts e n ur c um c rg s o l a nt n ia e nt em y o life te re om ily po isag on a d ut g d ll a tin fu c g pa in av s im t h ion no cis

de

y ac iv pr of ck la

Concerns

What are your biggest concerns of living with others?

33

Concerns

What are your biggest concerns of living with others?

(Icelandic nationals: 56 points)

30

28

23

20

g kin up t li gro no e lly th ia in nt e te on po me s es so m ‘s ple eo n rp he he w ot ts en ur c um c rg s o l a nt n ia e nt em y o life te re om ily po isag on a d ut g d ll a tin fu c g pa in av s im t h ion no cis

de

ck

la

of

pr

ac iv

y

g kin up t li gro no e lly th ia in nt e te on po me s es so m ‘s ple eo n rp he he w ot ts en ur c um c rg s o l a nt n ia e nt em y o life te re om ily po isag on a d ut g d ll a tin fu c g pa in av s im t h ion no cis

de

ck

la

of

pr

ac iv

y

Concerns

Concerns

What are your biggest concerns of living with others?

(Icelandic nationals: 56 points)

What are your biggest concerns of living with others? (other nationals: 78 points)

g kin up t li gro no e lly th ia in nt e te on po me s es so m ‘s ple eo n rp he he w ot ts en ur c um c rg s o l a nt n ia e nt em y o life te re om ily po isag on a d ut g d ll a tin fu c g pa in av s im t h ion no cis

la

g kin up t li gro no e lly th ia in nt e te on po me s es so m ‘s ple eo n rp he he w ot ts en ur c um c rg s o l a nt n ia e nt em y o life te re om ily po isag on a d ut g d ll a tin fu c g pa in av s im th n io no cis de y ac iv pr of

other nationalities (78 checked boxes) de

ck

ck

la

Icelandic nationals (56 checked boxes)

of

pr ac iv y

To not like someone in a bigger group might of course always happen, but it then depends on the personal maturity to either put aside this inner conflict or to decide that this is something which can’t be solved and to quit the group. The point being is that no resident will be forced to spend time with someone they don’t like although they might share the main intention of the community.

Concerns

What are your biggest concerns of living with others? (other nationals: 78 points)

Sharing

What would you want to share with community members outside your own household?

39

37

37

34

31

25

22

19

When participants were asked to type what else they would be concerned about most answers talked about different ideas of living together, sharing cost or using things. Other participants specifically expressed concerns about privacy in their personal unit and potentially high turnover in residents.

11

g kin up t li gro no e lly th ia in nt e te on po me s es so m ‘s ple eo n rp he he w ot ts en ur c um c rg s o l a nt n ia e nt em y o life te re om ily po isag on a d ut g d ll a tin fu c g pa in av s im th n io no cis de y ac iv pr of

ck

la

n

e rd

et rn te in , ols to t s, ie en ilit m ut quip e

ga

old s eh ce us an ho pli ap

e ar

s

ie

it g in ibil an ns cle spo re

m

o ro

s ce

on

pa

en

-c

ild

ks

m

ch kit

ch

or w

m co

Sharing

What would you want to share with community members outside your own household?

Sharing

What would you want to share with community members outside your own household? (men / women)

39 37

37 34 31

70

Analysis 25 22

et rn te in s, ol to t s, ie en ilit m ut quip e

en rd ga

d ol s eh ce us an ho pli ap

e ar

g lit in ibi an ns cle spo re

-c ild ch

s ie

om ro

es ac sp

n he tc ki

k or w

on m m co

Sharing What would you want to share with community members outside your own houseSharing(multiple choice with at least one box checked) hold?

What would you want to share with community members outside your own household? (men / women)

Women (163 boxes, 65% of all answers) Men (87 boxes, 35 % of all answers) Total: 250 boxes *column height in proportion to percentage of gender-group of total participants

et t rn ne te r in inte

,

s s, l ol oo to , t t s, es t n ieiti enme ilittil mip ut uquiqpu e e

n en de rd ar ga g

d ld ol o s s eh ehce ce us usan an ho hopli pli ap ap s s ie tie g g lit ili in in ibi ib an anns ns cleclespospo re re

e e ar ar -c -c ild ild ch ch

n en e ch tch kit ki

s es ce ac a sp sp rk ork wo w

m om oo ro n r on o m m m m co co

17% and what exact6% out how much This question was posed in order to find 16% 8% 9% 16 % ly participants would be willing to share. In total, 255 out of 495 possible multiple-choice boxes were checked, setting the mark of overall willingness to share at about 50 %. Positive answers (the ability to imagine to share) seem to depend very much on the object in question resulting 13% 8% 15% in a12%big difference such as 12% gardens and 7% in willingness 10% to share spaces 13% 10 % kitchens. The rating is a good indicator for which spaces are perceived as private and which could be semi-public. It should be noted that Sharing “kitchen” as such could be understood as the common kitchen attached What would you want to share with community members outside your own household? to the dining room as well as the private kitchen. “Common room” might (Icelanders / other nationalities) also be understood as the private living room 22 which might explain the very low willingness to share each of the spaces. 21

Women

Men

20 19 share spac19 Overall, participants exhibited a relatively high readiness to 18 18 es outside the private unit like gardens, workplaces or practical things 17 like utilities and internet-access. Child-caring is also something many participants can imagine to which only makes 15 share 15 with 15the community, 15 sense given the tense situation concerning kindergarten-places in Reykjavík. Answers show that objects like household appliances which are 12 not directly linked to privacy but do belong into the private unit receive rather low ratings when it comes to sharing. Possibly, the key aspect is not primarily privacy as such, but rather what makes part of the private 9 unit and is thus considered private. Low ratings on sharing cleaning re7

7

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living 4

Icelanders (51% of participants, 155 boxes, 61% of all answers) Others (49% of participants, 100 boxes, 39% of all answers) Total: 255 boxes *column height shows absolute amount of checked boxes

71

et rn te in s, ol to t s, ie en ilit m ut quip e

en rd ga

d ol s eh ce us an ho pli ap

g lit in ibi an ns cle spo re

e ar

s ie

Men

%

-c ild ch

9%

es ac sp

om ro

Women

n he tc ki

k or w

on m m co

t ne er

sponsibilities might be connected with low scores on “other peoples mess” in the question about concerns. Possibly participants are concerned about having to clean up more than they accounted for them17% 6% selves.

16% 8%

Women

16 %

In this question, men and women exhibit relatively matching scores on sharing, which only really deviate in “classic” fields which may be attributed to either sex. Assuming the traditional role-model of the work13% 8% 12% 15% 7% 10% ing12% man and the housewife as backdrop, quite interesting patterns are 13% 10 % showing in the statistics. Men are more willing to share kitchens and household appliances which can be seen as a space traditionally attribSharingto women while women are more ready to share traditional mens uted What would you want to share with community members outside your own household?

(Icelanders / other nationalities) domains like workspaces or tools.

Men

22 21 20 19

19 18

18 17

15

15

15

15

Icelanders (51% of participants, 155 boxes, 61% of all answers)

12

12

Others (49% of participants, 100 boxes, 39% of all answers) Total: 255 boxes *column height shows absolute amount of checked boxes

Icelande boxes, 61

Others (4 39% of a

Total: 25

9

7

*column amount

7

4 2

et t rn rne te in inte

,

s s, l ol oo to , t t s, es t n ie iti en me ilit til m ip ut uquipqu e e

n en de rd ar ga g

d ld ol os s eh eche ce us uasn an ho holi li p p ap ap s s ie tie g glit ili in inibi ib an anns ns cle cslepo spo re re

e e ar ar -c -c ild ild ch ch

t

ne

n en e ch tch kit ki

s es ce ac a sp sp rk ork wo w

m om oo ro n r on o m m m m co co

er

When answers are organized into two nationality groups (Icelandic / other) into which participants are almost equally divided, it is obvious that Icelandic participants are more positive minded towards sharing spaces and objects. Out of a total of 255 checked boxes, Icelandic parActivities ticipants account for 61% while others only make up 39%. For some options like workspaces or utilities all participants show rather equal patterns, while for others the willingness to share deviates very much 41 between nationalities. Regarding common rooms, kitchens, cleaning responsibilities 37and household appliances, participants from other nationalities don’t even reach half of the points of Icelanders. I can not explain this currently, to be honest I would have even supposed a reverse trend as Icelanders live in such a highly individualised society.

26 23

72

Analysis

12%

7%

10 %

10%

13%

8%

13%

15%

12%

Men

Sharing

What would you want to share with community members outside your own household?

(Icelanders / other nationalities) 22

Following20up on this interesting trend, I21interviewed a few colleagues in 19 school from different countries, namely from19 Turkey and from Poland.

18 18 There is a big Polish community in Iceland which statistically should 17 make up for considerable parts of the “other nationalities� group. Both 15 15 15 15 interviewiees independently commented that owning spaces and obIcelanders (51% of participants, 155 jects is a culturally and historically anchored status symbol whereas boxes, 61% of all answers) 12 Others of participants, 100 boxes, sharing would be seen as mere economic necessity and thus as(49% a sign 39% of all answers) of poverty. This phenomenon could possibly explain the lesser average Total: 255 boxes 9 readiness of immigrants in Iceland to share with their neighbours - but *column height shows absolute amount of checked boxes 7 7 of course this remains a hypothesis as of now.

e rd n

et rn te in s, ol to t s, ie en ilit m ut quip e

ga

e ar

m

o ro

d ol s eh ce us n a ho li p ap s ie g lit in ibi an ns cle spo re

-c

en

on

s ce pa ks

m

h tc

ild

ki

or w

m co

ch

When participants were asked4 what else they could imagine sharing other than the2 given options they named vehicles, guest rooms that could be rented, laundry facilities, inside play areas for children, a gym, and toys.

Activities What activities could you imagine the community to do together? (multiple choice with at least one box checked) Activities

41 37

26 23

s er

nn

di

d

clu re isu le ners in bs

ng

bs clu re g su in ei n

ni de

l e rd ga

r / ga e/ ncce na an teten ain in rss m mapapiair rere

Research and experience from communities that have been active for decades shows that common activities play a central role for community life.54 Work projects and other communal activities give residents an excuse to spend time together, bond over common projects where all pull together and create topics for small talks.

54 McCarmant, K. & Durrett, C. (2014). Creating Cohousing - Building Sustainable Communities. 3rd ed. New Society Publishers, p. 104

Activities

Out of 220 possible positive answers (meaning in case every participant would have checked boxes for each option) participants checked 127 22 21 sum of which 55 were mandatorily checked. This means that boxes in 19 roughly half of the responses are voluntarily indicating a rather high willIcelanders (51% of participants, 70 boxes, 55% ofOut all answers) ingness to engage in common activities. of the given options for an16

16

12

Others (49% of participants, 57 boxes, 45% of all answers) Total: 127 boxes

11 Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of shows livingabsolute *column height 10

amount of checked boxes

73

s er nn di bs clu res isuer le nn di gs inub encl rdre gaisu / le ce an en g nt in ai en rs m rd ai p ga re / ce an en nt ai rs m pai re

swers, the ones which concern practical issues like repairs or gardening seemed more popular among participants than the ones that are in the leisure area or do not directly concern the upkeeping of the community facilities. Participants may feel less enthused about common activities now and would possibly increase willingness once the community is up running.

Activities and Activities 22 21

22

21 19

19

Icelanders (51% of participants, Icelanders (51% of participants, 70 boxes, 70 boxes, 55% of all answers) 55% of all answers) 16

16

Others (49% of participants, Others (49% of participants, 57 boxes, 57 boxes, 45% of all answers) 45% of all answers) Total: 127 boxes Total: 127 boxes

12

12 11

11

16

16

10

*column height shows absolute *column height shows absolute checked boxes amount of amount checkedof boxes

10

s erers nn n di din bss clulub reresc isuisuer le leinn d g iningbs enenclu rd rdre ga lgeaisu // ece nacn ean g nnt in atieen irs aminrd pars m ga preai / re ce an en nt ai rs m pai re

When answers are compared between nationality groups, the trend showing in the earlier questions continues according to which Icelandshow a higher average readiness to engage in communal activities.

Activities ers Activities Regarding leisure clubs and free time activities, immigrants seem slightly22more willing to spend time with with their neighbours. This might be 22 21 21 explained by the general difficulty to engage with Icelanders when try19 19 ing to break into their circles. Icelanders It might also prove hard70to find locations (51% Icelanders of participants, (51% of participants, 70 boxes, boxes, 55% of all answers) 55% of all answers) where immigrants 16 16meet to create circles of their own. In general I can 16 16 Others (49% Others of participants, (49% of participants, 57 boxes, 57 boxes, 45% of all answers) 45% of all answers) currently not name reasons why Icelanders should on average be more Total: 127 boxes Total: 127 boxes 12 counterparts from other nationalities.

12 social than their 11

11

10

10

s er nn di bs clu res isuer leinn d gs inub encl rdre gaisu / le ce an en g nt in ai en rs m rd ai p ga re / ce an en nt ai rs m pai re

In the follow-up question participants also mentioned helping elderly or those in need of extra support, the keeping of animals, short time baby sitting, sharing the responsibility of picking up kids from school or kindergarten, cinema and game nights, creative workshops, running a greenhouse or planting vegetables for food and organizing parties or festivals.

OwnershipOwnership

What schemeWhat of ownership scheme should of ownership the community should thepursue? community pursue?

rental

rental

buying

buying

a mix of botha mix of both

74

7

7 8

8 31

31

Analysis

ne

in

clu

rs

e ur

n de

e nc na te in ir s a

p re

bs

g

/ clu

rs

re

ne

isu

n di

le bs

g in en rd ga / ce an en nt ai rs m pai re

Ownership

What scheme of ownership should the community pursue? (single choiceOwnership with at least one box checked)

What scheme of ownership should the community pursue?

rental buying a mix of both

7 8 What scheme of ownership should the community pursue?

Ownership

rental

31

7

buying

8

Asked which scheme of ownership the community should pursue, the a mix of both 31 participants agree, that a mix of both renting and buying options would be best fit. It certainly will make the community accessible to as many people as possible, both people looking to buy and to rent. Experience from cohousing communities such as Drejerbanken in Denmark shows Ownership that this model work perfectly although residents talk about inWhat can scheme of ownership should fine the community pursue? creased difficulty regarding financing and planning.55 Legal bodies such as community land trusts could come in strong here, which would own 0 rental complex, oversee transactions of apartments and organize the building 7 Ownership the renting of spaces in4 the name of the community. buying What scheme of ownership should the community pursue?

4

a mix of both rental

55 McCarmant, K. & Durrett, C. (2014). Creating Cohousing - BuildIcelanders ing Sustainable Communities. 3rd ed. NewOthers Society Publishers, p. 105

20

Icelanders

11

0 7

Others

4 4

buying

20

a mix of both

11

When comparing the answers by nationality, both groups (Icelandic / other) still prefer a mix, but while Icelandic participants don’t want rental units, the ones from other nationalities see it as a better option over Mobility buying which might be connected with the huge financial commitment Which kind of mobility do you prefer for yourself? attached to buying real estate in Iceland or difficulty to secure a bank loan.

38 Mobility

Which kind of mobility 33 do you prefer for yourself?

38

30

33 30

21 19

21 11

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways 11 of living

19

75

ar

gr a

ng g

ng

t or sp an

t or sp an

Mobility What kind of mobility do you prefer for yourself?

Mobility (multiple choice with at least one box checked) Which kind of mobility Which kind do you of mobility prefer for doyourself? you prefer for yourself?

Mobility

21

21 20

20

18

18

Icelanders (51% of participants) Icelanders (51% of participants) 17

17

other nationalities (49% of participants) other nationalities (49% of participants)

16

16

11

11 10 9

9

10

10 9

10 9

6

6

5

5

r r ca ca al al on on rs rs pe pe

pe

g ng rin ri ar ha ha l c r s r s na ca ca rso

ca

g g in in ar ar g sh shrin ke e a bi bikr sh

or

sp t

g rin ke ke ha bi bi s t ke rt or bi po sp ns an tra tr

ic lic bl b pu pu e k bi

pu

g n ng in ra lki alk c t wa w bli

ng

ki

al w

Participants were asked about the kinds of mobility they would like to use themselves to understand which kinds of requirements the housing facilities would need. Apart from insights about mobility the questions and its answers also shed light on the possible location of the cohousing community. The high numbers of answers pointing towards walking, biking and use of public transport make it necessary for the cohousing community to be situated in a central, urban or suburban location with good access to public transport.

Walking, public transport and biking combined made up for 73 % of all answers which can be considered great news for a city with traffic problems during rush hour and a disproportionated car/person ratio.

Among other answers pointing in the same direction, this also indicates that people interested in cohousing might be contesting the paradigm of the personal car which has dictated much of the city planning in ReykjavĂ­k. Regarding space-use this is also interesting as from all transport modes listed the personal car occupies most space when being idle.

Car-sharing is a little more popular than the private car but is by far outnumbered by demand for biking and being able to use walking and public transport as primary means of personal mobility.

While concerning personal mobility only few differences in preferences show between nationalities, Icelanders are far more open-minded towards biking as means of transport than immigrants. This might be due to Icelanders having assimilated to harsh weather while elsewhere only few people would bike-commute in such hard conditions.

76

Analysis

Conclusion The results of the survey do not represent completely reliable data and would require a need a higher number of participants in order to be used as foundation to extract cohousing guidelines for Icelandic contexts. Survey data is also likely to be overridden by input from the actual resident group in the participatory process. It is very important to state that there can not be a rule for balancing priorities or mock-up designs when projecting a cohousing community but instead this requires architects to carefully analyse needs and demands from case to case.

However, the above-noted results are worth mentioning as they come from a varied group of participants and can thus give us a feeling for a general attitude towards this way of living. I can see from statistics and written answers, that participants have a relatively positive mindset towards cohousing and are open and interested in collective action.

Certainly this could be the case since only people interested in cohousing as such might have taken this survey - but then again those are the people whose opinions and input counts for discussing the matter.

It was both interesting and encouraging to read and analyse especially what participants had typed in the follow-up questions. There individual life-situations in a possible relation to a strong housing community showed behind mere statistical numbers. Participants were writing and dreaming about potentials they were seeing in cohousing in relation to their own life. While some issues like raising children in a safe and caredfor environment with fellow mates were repeatedly written about, others varied very much. To read this made me feel like the question of how to live in collectivity is relevant to many in Iceland and encouraged me to continue working on this project.

Judging from the survey results I feel like there is a broad group of people for which cohousing could present solutions to various issues. This form of living could bring with it richer and more meaningful relations with neighbours and friends and create possibilities to share and learn from each other.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

77

78

Analysis

Problems & Strategies In the research part I have described what the strengths in cohousing schemes are and how it could enhance residents lives. But in order to find out what cohousing exactly would offer in ReykjavĂ­k, I identified and analysed several issues that the population is currently dealing with.

Some problems may affect certain citizen groups more than others I then continued to search for strategies that would serve as guidelines in the design and to keep priorities straight.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

79

Problems Social isolation

Social isolation is mostly affecting immigrants living in Iceland due to several reasons. I have experienced this myself after having moved to Iceland and working in an architecture studio. It was hard to get to know and casually meet people or make friends and there seemed to be no places where to meet the locals, although this experience was definitely affected by the time of the year being in winter. Social networks in Iceland are very tightly knit making it hard for foreigners to enter these circles. The overall community is certainly not great in size and most citizens moving in the same circles have known each other for long years going through kindergarten, high school and even university together.

At the same time, Icelanders feel being drawn back to Iceland making many of them come back home and re-entering the community after studying abroad.

56 Andie Fontaine (2018) Immigrants in Iceland increase by 50% from 2012, https://grapevine.is/ news/2018/12/05/immigrants-iniceland-increase-by-50-from-2012/, accessed 9 July 2019

Other factors like weather or the nature of public space also make it hard to casually meet people in public, open places. I would suspect that with the high percentage of immigrants from certain places - many of them from East European countries living in Iceland for work - there are parallel immigrant societies in Iceland.56

Cost of living

57 Birkir Blær Ingólfsson (2017) Reykjavík langdýrasta borg Norðurlandanna, https://www.ruv.is/frett/ reykjavik-langdyrasta-borg-nordurlandanna, accessed 9 July 2019

58 anon (2018) Ask the expert: How much does it cost to rent in Reykjavík? , https://icelandmag.is/ article/ask-expert-how-much-doesit-cost-rent-reykjavik-hint-its-notcheap, accessed 11 July 2019

80

Due to a number of reasons Iceland is having very high cost of living making it the most expensive of the nordic cities and eight most expensive city worldwide.57 Most obviously, the nature of the country being situated on an island far away from trade partners adds transport cost as well as tax to everything being imported into the country. It should be noted that many goods can not be produced by the Icelandic economy due to lack of capacity and demand. Furthermore, temperatures and growing periods heavily affect possibilities for agriculture.

Reykjavík citizens additionally have to spend big parts of their income on housing. “According to analysis by the government Housing Financing Fund the average rental price for a one bedroom apartment in downtown Reykjavík is 188,000 ISK (ca 1,687 USD/1,434 EUR).”58 Although lately, the government has cracked down on unregistered ‘airbnb’ listings within the city, in 2017 44% of the rental apartments where listed on the vacation short-term renting portal.59 The situation on the buying

Analysis

market is not much better either. The real estate market is overpriced and has been relatively empty and is just now slowly swinging slightly in buyers favour. Due to high prices as well as high financing cost for bank loans the market is also very difficult to get into for first buyers.

59 Alice Demurtas (2017) 90% airbnb increase: 44% of rental market listed, https://grapevine. is/news/2017/05/31/90-airbnb-increase-44-of-rental-market-listed/, accessed 11 July 2019

Urban Sprawl

As noted above in the history about Reykjavík, urban sprawl has been a massive part in the development and planning of the city. New neighbourhoods have been developed primarily as detached houses. It is very possible that this is - potentially because of the open and spacious character of the natural Icelandic landscape - the Icelanders preferred form of living and therefore what the market demands. Still this expansion has brought with it considerable issues that affect daily life.

Primarily, land use is much higher when building detached houses. Residential density in Reykjavík is therefore low compared to densely grown cities such as Lund. The average size of a dwelling unit in Reykjavík is high at 136 m2 which in times of high building cost is not a sustainable way to build.60 The phenomenon of a city spreading out is surely also due to factors like landscape and time period during which the regarding cities expanded.

1 km2 x 100 Reykjavík: 390 inhabitants / km2

60 Registers Iceland (2018) Housings in the capital region by number, size and municipalities by Years, Municipalities and Unit, data extracted 07 January 2019

1 km2 x 100 Lund: 3.800 inhabitants / km2

However, there are certain disadvantages of living very spread out. Cost of infrastructure such as roads, sewage or electric grid is much higher per resident and needs to be beared by all tax payers, not only the ones living in the area. Additionally, public transport infrastructure must be increased to cover these areas, or they will be exclusively available to those owning cars and create social segregation. In turn more cars are needed for personal mobility and will contribute towards traffic problems. But also for residents of detached housing areas cost of housing is higher f.ex. when thinking about space heating.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

81

Housing backlog

61 Registers Iceland (2017) Housings in the capital region by number, size and municipalities by Years, Municipalities and Unit

62 Icelandic Tourist Board (2018) Numbers of foreign visitors, https:// www.ferdamalastofa.is/en/recearch-and-statistics/numbers-of-foreign-visitors, accessed 12 July 2019

As have most other capital or bigger cities the Capital Region of Reykjavík has a steadily growing population of currently about 215.00 which was only slightly decreased after the 2008 financial crisis. Currently the population of Reykjavík city is growing at about 1% per year. The average number of people inhabiting one dwelling unit is sinking and was 2,4 in 2017 while other municipalities still an average of 2,7 to 2,9 people share a dwelling unit.61 At the same time, the number of delivered dwelling units per year for Reykjavík city sharply dropped after the financial crisis in 2008. Some years only a quarter or even less of the production in the pre-crisis years were handed over to the market. Reasons for this are found in the unavailability of building capital in the first years after the financial crash as well as the size of the building industry. The amount of projects the Icelandic building sector can take on is certainly limited by the capacity of the industry and availability of personnel. Hence the remote location of the island, no foreign building contractor could easily step into the market. What is more the 2010 eruption of local volcano Eyjafjallajökull caused a massive tourist influx measuring 2.3 million visitors in 201862 (about ten times the countries population) which in turn caused the building industry to be primarily employed with constructing hotels and guest houses as this was where most capital was invested at the time.

The above mentioned problem with rental apartments being listed for short-term rental to tourists causes a massive housing backlog.

Public transport

63 anon (2017) More motor vehicles than people in Iceland, https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/ news/news/2017/04/06/more_motor_vehicles_than_people_in_iceland/, accessed 12 July 2019

82

Transport in Iceland mainly functions through personal car as it offers the best possibility to reach individual destinations in the city as well as the countryside. No railway lines exists on the island but a service of regional buses connect cities with each other. Within the Capital Region a bus network exists but the majority of residents prefer the personal car for their mobility resulting in a very high ratio countrywide of 1,02 cars per person. While high numbers of rental cars for tourists naturally distort this ratio, the number does not even consider unregistered cars.63 Referencing to the planning paradigm of the personal car and the functional segregation mentioned above in the history about Reykjavík this does not come as a surprise. At rush-hour time there are now

Analysis

regular traffic jams in the Capital Region of Reykjavík. The bus network in Reykjavík does exist but is in my experience not very attractive in competition with the private car. Connections between parts of the city are often inconvenient and take comparably long time. However a new express bus line called Borgarínan (city line) which would also pass by the new development in Skerjafjörður is being discussed and planned.

Public life

Life in public places is naturally heavily influenced by weather conditions as well as by urban mobility both of which I have analysed in this report. While there is a clear demand for and interest in public life, current circumstances some of which could be influenced are not ideal. Weather often makes it unpleasant to spend time outdoors which would necessitate specially designed outdoor spaces where wind and precipitation influences could be minimized. In turn this has brought with it a culture of socialising in indoor spaces and formally inviting peers to social events. As stated above, transport is almost exclusively motorized which limits possibilities for participants of traffic to casually communicate with each other. Cycling and walking however would offer higher levels of communication. Additionally functionally segregated areas create little interest to stroll on foot between places, except for a few streets.

Concluding I can see that there are very few chances for people and neighbours to casually meet in places due to circumstances which are partly out of their hands and being taken as a given. It would however be a great improvement if within a housing development and neighbourhood there were incentives for public life to flourish and conditions would be created which incite public life, communication and contact.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

83

Strategies Housing typologies

64 City of ReykjavĂ­k (2014) ReykjavĂ­k Municipal Plan 2010 - 2030, p.10

In its municipal plan the City of ReykjavĂ­k has formulated the goal to realize 90% of all new developments within current city boundaries.

This has been deemed far more economic and environmentally friendly than the classic planning approach focusing on suburban areas.64 The city has accordingly decided that new projects should focus on residential density. Additionally, the housing typologies currently being used could be challenged by new models of f.ex. cohousing or other forms of collective living.

This new planning paradigm certainly requires a new take on mobility and the possibility of living without a personal car. The design project of this master thesis could thus examine the chances in living centrally with good connection to public transport and without a personal car.

Community life

In order to answer to problems with public life as well as social isolation identified above the project should focus on sparking communal life between residents and neighbours both with the spatial program as well as design decisions. Community life is not only reasoned in itself but also necessary as strong foundation of a cohousing project.

The cohousing community and its housing project could in this way become a community motor for residents, neighbours and others to connect and to profit of each others knowledge and creativity.

Communal / private

It is important for residents of a community to be able to retreat to a private sphere where they do not have to interact with members of said community. Being mindful about communal as well as private spaces is therefore an important task for the designer.

84

Analysis

Affordability

According to the survey conducted during the research part of the master thesis, a higher return for the financial investment is a key interest for participants. Keeping expenses at a minimum is also critical in connection with already high cost of living noted above among the problems identified.

Furthermore, a focus on affordability will also contribute towards social sustainability and open the cohousing community to a mixture of people - the more people could afford to live in the community the better the social mix would be. This is important to fight social isolation and to keep interests of people from different parts of society in mind.

Environmental sustainability

Although I might not be able to go as much into detail about building material as I would like to, keeping environmental sustainability is always part of the assignment of the designer. On a global scale “cement is the source of about 8% of the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, according to think tank Chatham House.�65 But it has also been the favoured building material in Iceland because of its earthquake resisting characteristics making it the countries single most imported product.

In my understanding, architects should challenge the status quo of an industry if it is not in compliance with progressive thinking and hold the responsibility to try and point out new ways. Therefore, and to save on high cost of local labour in Iceland, I am examining possibilities of using Cross-laminated timber (CLT), made from alternating layers of wood, which can be prefabricated in factories with high quality levels and transported to the construction site.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

65 Rodgers, L. (2018) Climate change: The massive CO2 emitter you may not know about, https://www.bbc.com/ news/science-environment-46455844, accessed 12 July 2019

85

Weather When analysing characteristics of a location and possible building site weather conditions are not to be neglected. They play an especially important role when they are a major factor in how life functions - in this case far north on the globe.

N 14

NNE

NNW 12

NE

10

NW

8 6

ENE

WNW 4 2

E

0

W

ESE WSW

SE SW SSE

SSW

S

average wind speeds

66 anon (2019) Wind statistics at Reykjavik airport, https://de.windfinder.com/windstatistics/reykjavik_ airport, accessed 11 July 2019

In Iceland wind is often the most defining weather element as there is little shelter in the open landscape. Wind therefore contributes to shaping of landscape as well as human behaviour in urban spaces often making it unpleasant to spend time outdoors. On site in Skerjafjörður average wind directions measured throughout the year mostly comes from the east at speeds up to 14 m/s.66 The building arrangement should answer to this and include shelter from wind influence in outdoor spaces.

12 Apr

N 330

00:04

21 Jun 10°

02:55 30

20° 30° 300

40° 60

50°

20:51

06:08

60° 70° 80°

E

W

21 Dec 240 120

210

daylight hours

15:30

11:22 150

S

Another idiocracy of the remote location is the big difference in daylight hours between winter and summer. While the longest day on June 21st offers about 21 hours of daylight with the sun hardly ever setting, on December 21st it only rises at 11.22 just to set at 15.30 over Reykjavík offering only about four hours of daylight. Generally buildings are arranged in order to gain maximum exposure to sunlight. It is paramount

86

Analysis

to ensure good access to sunlight for all dwelling units especially during short winter days and to face spaces like kitchens and living rooms towards south-west.

Shadow studies would help finding the best possible Rainy days per month in average arrangement for all units.

30

20

14

14

15

12

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

12

May

12 10

10

Jun

Jul

12

13

12

13

10

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

monthly precipitation (days with precipitation per month)

Another defining element for public life in Reykjavík is precipitation which occurs on every second to third day in form of either rain or snow.67 The amount of precipitation is influencing how and how much people use outdoor spaces and clearly creates a need for well-designed sheltered outdoor spaces as well as possibilities for socialising indoors.

Lastly, average temperatures should also be taken note of. During winters temperatures do not always drop below freezing in Reykjavík and if so not by far. This often creates sludgy snow conditions with melted water freezing over again by night. On the other hand, temperatures only seldom climb above 20° C with the average high being about 14° C in July offering only few summerly days to the population. It could be interesting to explore design possibilities of “outdoor inside spaces” such as winter gardens or green houses which would offer a feeling of being outside while actually remaining in the shelter of the inside.

67 anon (2019) Weather statistics for Reykjavik, Capital Region, https:// www.yr.no/place/Iceland/Capital_ Region/Reykjavik~6295712/statistics. html, accessed 11 July 2019

Monthly temperature average

24 22 20

Avg. High: 14°C

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

-6

monthly average temperature (average high, average combined, average low)

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

87

3

design proposal Situation & Site plan Urban Fabric Space Usage Floor Plans Transparency Sections & Elevations Sun studies Perspectives Model photos

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

89

Situation plan scale 1:10.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 km

cinema & hotel University of Iceland Nordic house, culture Reykjavík domestic airport BSÍ bus station, transfer to int. airport Landspitali, university hospital Perlan, museum & viewpoint University of Reykjavík Nauthólsvík, geothermal beach

1 km

1

2 6

3 5

4

7

8

9

existing settlement

Skerjafjรถrรฐur

small boat harbour

Site plan 1:1.000

educational facilities

project site

car garage

outflow from Vatnsmýri square with commercial activity

walking path along shore

Urban Layout master plan (framework) In the situation and site plans seen on the pages before the urban surrounding and layout of the area are shown with important functions and places highlighted. Much of the site specific details have already been discussed above in relation to the airport and its possible relocation.

The new development in Skerjafjörður as envisioned by ask arkitektar has been used as base into which the project design is embedded. As can be seen in the site plan, I have chosen a plot as marked in ark arkitetars master plan and kept my development inside its borders in order to try and let the project get as close to reality as possible.

The street grid of the new development in the eastern part continues the structure given by the existing Skerjafjörður settlement. The block structure however offers more density and higher buildings which are layed out along straight roads with rectangular intersections. The street atmosphere is meant to be friendly with many trees, broad pavements for pedestrians and cyclists and only little offerings for parking. Private cars are thus meant to be parked in dedicated parking garages centrally located in the new settlement. The new neighbourhood offers high walkability and good access to recreational spaces such as the outflow from Vatnsmýri which is turned into a broad green area with bike lanes, walkways and small ponds in direct vicinity to the chosen project site.

Additionally, the existing bike path and walkway along the shore is kept and complemented with a broad green strip offering public space for play and access to the water. In the center of the master plan, a public square with commercial activity and a parking garage is arranged.

The open perimeter block structure which might even be broken up to look like attached townhouses allows for public entry into the courtyards and permits for the construction of additional residential buildings in the yards. At times, the buildings seem to be oriented inwards and focus on the open spaces between which in some instances are used for parking lots. The dimensioning of the yards however does offer only little shelter from weather and might have an unclear character regarding privacy. High numbers of not-resident pedestrians passing through a courtyard possibly obstructs communal activity which requires a certain amount of appropriation of space. Some of the courtyards also possibly need more enclosure in order to achieve clearer spatial boundaries - otherwise the courtyard might blend with bordering spaces like the street.

94

Design Proposal

project design The cohousing community is situated on a 0.28 ha. (2.800 m2) plot in the western part of the new neighbourhood and houses 32 dwellings units.

I chose the plot because it offers good access to a green area as well as an unobstructed view to the shore within very quick walking distance to the commercial center. The size of the plot also fit to the community size I intended to examine. It borders with the above mentioned green area layed out around the outflow of Vatnsmýri in the west and a educational center to the north. On the east side, the typical open perimeter block structure continues while in the south two rows of townhouses are placed.

The building volume of the cohousing community answers to its surroundings by establishing different characters in the east and west in order to adress the big difference in spatial nature. The main building forms an L-shape in the north and west to create a clear border towards the street respecting the building lines established in the master plan.

The south and west edges of the project site are marked by semi-detached townhouses which open up to the green area in the west permitting an easy flow in and out. The volumes form a sheltered courtyard which is much smaller in dimension than the ones in the master plan and serves as centermost of the communal spaces. The courtyard can be accessed via the entrance of the main building from the east or through a public square marking the south-eastern corner of the plot.

Certainly the townhouses to the west also allow for entrance into the yard. In order to achieve a more sheltered and private character the entrances between the volumes are kept at minimum size. In order to break the volumes into a more human scale the buildings are designed with setbacks in their facades.

What became very important during design were the sizes of the plot, community and the spaces. It became evident that these parameters are connected and have to be adjusted in relation to each other.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

95

Urban Fabric The below diagram and section show the urban fabric of the area surrounding the project site according to the master plan. Differences in height which break the roof lines into smaller sections are creating a lively up-and-down in the street atmosphere. Glimpses of life in the courtyards are visible when passing by openings in the building volumes. The two different sides of the design as stated above are visible: While the master plan generally envisions a building height of about ten meters (three floors) the blocks to the north-east rises to 17 meters. On the other side, an open space of about 60 m width offers possibilities for recreational activities.

cohousing community old settlement

green area

new settlement

urban section

96

Design Proposal

In the project design itself the response to this situation is visible in the difference in size and character of the volumes. Small scale townhouses bridge the difference in height between the green area and the urban development all while offering access between the courtyard and the public open space. On the other side, the main building is rising from three to four storeys in height emphasizing on the main entrance and communal function in the north-east corner. The courtyard becomes the center of the whole building complex and spatially focuses on the junction of the two main building wings where the main entrance with an open foyer is located. In this way, the building steps back and gives importance to a void, a non-building, where community life can flourish.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

97

Space Usage & Spatial Program A building for a cohousing community is mainly divided into two types of spaces that both have important functions. Private dwelling units house bedrooms and other private areas that are important for a functional household like living rooms and kitchens. Here is also where residents can go if they do not want to be disturbed or interact in the community. On the other hand are communal spaces where most intentional communal activity happens. These are purposeful spaces like a dining hall, a workshop or a laundry room. The careful balancing of both categories of spaces is very important for the scheme to work out both on communal as well as on financial terms. It is clear that both the size of the community as well as the percentage of residential space heaviliy influence how many and what kind of communal space the community can afford. The bigger the community and the higher the percentage of residential space the easier it will be to afford and equip whichever shared space the community demands. Analysis of existing cohousing schemes has shown that relatively big communities of about 40 dwellings can afford about 20 % of communal space.

Residential (72 %)

Circulation (5 %) Communal (23%)

Circulation area is the third type of space - and although its percental proportion is relatively small in the present project design it holds very important functions. Hallways, access balconies and foyers mainly connect rooms but they also allow for unintentional, informal meetings between residents which greatly contribute to strengthening neighbourly relations. Some residents might have long-standing relations already

Plot size 2.800 m2 private communal spaces

Total internal floor area 3.390 m2 Residential area 2.450 m2 (72 %)

semi-public communal spaces

Communal area 750 m2 (23 %) Circulation area (indoors) 190 m2 (5 %) Average unit size (32 units) 76,56 m2

98

Space usage diagram

Design Proposal

while others might have just moved into the building and need occasions to meet their neighbours. Circulation spaces can provide these opportunities for informal meetings which might create chances for further communication.

In this design communal spaces of rather public nature like a café or workspaces are laid out horizontally along the street in the main building in order to allow for easy access for non-residents as well. Other communal spaces that are more reserved for the residents like a lounge or child-care room are arranged vertically at the north-east corner. Residential spaces are positioned away from the street either in the back of the plot or on the levels above the communal floor.

The building complex in total houses 32 dwelling units of various size.

If the total internal floor area of the building (3.390 m2) is broken down with the number of apartments the average floor area per apartment is about 105 m2 which is still much smaller in size than the average dwelling unit in Reykjavík at 134 m2. Furthermore it should be noted that the community as operator and main user of the building can decide to partially or temporarily rent out some of its communal spaces (f.ex. workspaces, café, sports room) to create revenue. Opening up facilities for others in this or another way and permitting a visual connection into ground floor communal spaces for passersby is an important opportunity in connecting cohousing residents with the wider neighbourhood.

movie room private units

lounge / TV room

access balcony

youth zone

private communal spaces child care

private units

mezzanine

access balcony

bike storage private units

workshop

entrance / foyer

yard

café / bar private units

guest apartment

hallway / greenhouse

semi-public communal spaces

multi-purpose room work spaces

private units laundry room service corridor

Spatial program

community kitchen dining room

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

99

Building Design Apart from the outside spaces mainly communal functions are arranged on the ground floor. Residential units are entered from the central yard and remain in the back of the plot where they are sheltered from weather and noise from the street. A square on the south-east corner invites the public to pause on a bench - a space to meet and enjoy a moment together. A parking for shared cars sits in the north of the building. The main entrance from the street is situated in the north-east and leads to a three-level open entrance foyer which serves as internal vertical circulation hub with stairs and an elevator. The bike garage and workshop as well as the cafĂŠ can be directly accessed from here.

A bright hallway visually opening to the courtyard is connecting the communal functions along the street facade and could possibly be publicly accessed when the community allows for it. The hallway also serves as lounge to sit and read and as a greenhouse where residents could grow potted plants. The cafĂŠ can be run by the community or provide self-service and open during certain times, possibly in connection with a bike-repair workshop. A separable multi-purpose room can be used for sports activities, lectures or meetings while a room with work desks provides opportunities for both members of the community or neighbours to rent desks in vicinity to their home. All of the previously mentioned spaces can be opened up and combined into one space which could host big events like weddings or conferences. Continuing in southern direction, an open laundry room can be accessed through the hallway or via secondary entrance that also services deliveries for the communal kitchen. The kitchen provides facilities to prepare dinners for the whole community saving time and money with a preparation scheme in which everyone cooks at some time. The dining hall provides enough seating and can also be used for other activities during the day. All of the spaces that are arranged along the facade feature big windows to the street in order to allow for visual contact with passersby on the street. At the same time, the spaces are in visual contact with the courtyard which thus stretches past its spatial boundaries as shows the below diagram.

Spatial borders

100

Spatial stretch

Further stretch

Design Proposal

car-sharing

C

bike garage

workshop

dwelling unit

entrance foyer

A

cafĂŠ / bar

B

dwelling unit greenhouse

hallway

courtyard

multi-purpose room, separable

workspaces

laundry room service entrance

dwelling unit

community kitchen

dining hall

dwelling unit

1st floor

public square

C

child-care

dwelling unit

foyer

A

dwelling unit

B access balcony with pockets

dwelling unit

access to courtyard

dwelling unit

dwelling unit

2nd floor

102

Design Proposal

C

cinema

dwelling unit

youth room

lounge

A

studio access balcony with pockets

B

access to courtyard

dwelling unit

3rd floor

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

103

The upper floors of the main building are accessed via the entrance foyer and are mainly reserved for residential purpose. However connected to the foyer more communal functions of different nature invite residents to social interaction. While the exact purpose of the spaces certainly depends on the community there is a number of ways to use the rooms such as child-care, guest-apartment, cinema or youth room.

Apartments in the main building are reached via access balconies from where staircases offer a direct connection down to the courtyard. The balconies hold a specially important function in seeing and being seen when entering and leaving the apartment. It does not only help with social control of the courtyard but also offers many possibilities for informal talks between residents. In some places the balconies are enlarged so residents could appropriate the spaces as seen in Sofielunds Kollektivhuset in Malmรถ or step outside the circulation area for a conversation.

Although the main structure of the apartments with social rooms (kitchen and living room) facing the balconies is the same, there are different types regarding the number of rooms ranging from studio aparments to three bedroom types. During research apartments with two or three bedrooms were identified as most versatile or catering to most resident groups which is why they became the standard type. If needed, single apartments could be combined into bigger types with f.ex. five bedrooms. Generally, apartments are though kept very compact with 60 to 70 m2 for a two bedroom apartment in order to encourage residents to use common facilities and engage in interaction with other residents.

The townhouses are entered from the first floor and hold apartments stretching over two levels with interior vertical circulation. They offer various spatial configurations to cater to different residents needs and can hold one to four bedrooms ranging from 85 to 97 m2.

Section A

Section B

104

Design Proposal

The sections below illustrate how the spaces between the buildings function and give a general idea of the character of the building. As visible in Section A, the openings facing the interior of the community permit a visual connection with those on the balconies and in the courtyard. The windows facing outwards however are tight and emphasize on personal privacy and the two different characters of the building (Elevation east). This is a contrasts to the big openings in the communal spaces on the first floor which allow passersby to look inside.

Section C shows the landscape elements between the dynamically shaped townhouses zoning the space into back- and front sides as well as a walking path between. This zone also marks the border between the public green area in the west and the communal courtyard functioning as a filter that keeps trespassers away without the use of fences.

Section C

Elevation east

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

105

Shadow studies During the design process shadow studies were carried out to ensure daylight reaching all dwelling units preferably during all times of the day and in an equal distribution. While daylight is are rare during winter with only four hours on winter solstice, long days in summer offer an abundance of radiation with virtually no darkness on summer solstice.

For the building design this meant carefully placing building volumes according to sunlight access while keeping other important factors in mind. The plot fortunately permitted to direct almost all social spaces of apartments where residents spend most time towards south-west.

The townhouses with only two levels also help with allowing more sunlight to reach the courtyard and the main building behind. Assuming that residents are at work during the day I realized that late winter afternoons are the most critical time of the day during which residents are at home and would need access to sunlight. Therefore I have concentrated on the afternoon hours during building placement.

Another quality is the option to choose how much residents want to expose themselves to the sun, although most people living in Iceland are rather seeking the sun when it shows due to many rainy days throughout the month. Consequently I have decided to place most social spaces where residents would dwell like the lounges, café and long hallway in a way that ensures good access to sunlight.

12 Apr

N 330

00:04

21 Jun 10°

02:55 30

20° 30° 300

40° 60

50°

20:51

06:08

60° 70° 80°

E

W

21 Dec 240 120

210

15:30

11:22 150

S daylight hours

106

Design Proposal

June 21, 9am

June 21, 12am

June 21, 3pm

March 21, 9am

March 21, 12am

March 21, 3pm

December 21, 9am

December 21, 12am

December 21, 3pm

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

107

perspectives The below view shows life in the central courtyard looking from south to north. The spatial enclosure is visible as well as the good visual connection into the dining hall, the long hallway and to the access balconies. Big openings in the private apartments are inspired by the Lange Eng Cohousing Project and enable dwellers to have an overview over what happens in the yard. Direct staircases quickly connect the ground floor to the balconies and roof terrace in the hinge of the main building creating a lively up-and-down around the yard. On the left storage for communal gardening equipment or outdoor toys can be seen.

108

Design Proposal

Residents may grow potted plants in the pockets of the long hallway turning them into small greenhouses that are also used for sitting and reading. Apart from a kids playground the courtyard is not very programmed as community life mostly needs free space for all kinds of activities that can be appropriated. Although the courtyard is tight in size it still offers many ways of using it. There is for instance enough space for a game of badminton. Walkways for circulation are laid out and otherwise grass is used as ground covering as it allows for most activities.

access balcony The view from the access balcony on the second level again emphasizes on the visual connections around the yard and shows how residents would stop for a casual chat. Also visible are setbacks in the building facade at the entrances to the apartments forming small bays which prevent from opening the door into the circulation area and form a small semi-private area attached to the apartment.

The wooden pillars bearing the load of the balconies contribute to a feeling of spatial enclosure and shelter on the balcony and help with articulating the space. Staircases and railings are executed in a slender way in order not to obstruct the view.

entrance foyer The big entrance foyer on the right continues the notion of opening up ground floor communal spaces facing the street presenting a stark contrast to the narrow windows of private bedrooms seen on the left. The building volume points out the main entrance with a break in the roof line but wraps around the foyer in a sheltering manner. The building is constructed from pre-fabricated massive wood units (CLT) and clad in vertically arranged timber which over time turns grey. The resulting contrast creates a welcoming and bright atmosphere in inside spaces that can also be seen from the outside.

Left of the foyer the cafĂŠ can be seen where residents may see and join a friend for a drink after coming home. On the right side, the two-storey workshop grants insights with a full-glazed facade.

filter between buildings The perspective on the next page shows the filter which characterises the space between main building and townhouse (or townhouse and townhouse). Hedges of different height articulate the rather private backside of the respective apartment though in the present case the space functions both as private garden and entrance space. On the right side a change in paving marks the frontside of the townhouse where residents could deposit bikes or appropriate it in another way.

The belonging of said space to the townhouse is emphasized by the cantilevering second floor which also helps to give shelter from weather. In the center a narrow path leads between the hedges into the courtyard and permits only accustomed pedestrians to enter.

112

Design Proposal

116

Design Proposal

Model photos For the presentation of the design project and to better understand the volumes I have built two physical models of the design. The situation model (scale 1:1.000) explains the building in relation to its surroundings while the building model (scale 1:200) communicates details about spatial and volumetrical proportions and facade characteristics.

The following photos hopefully contribute to a more cohesive understanding of the proposed design.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

117

118

Design Proposal

situation model, scale 1:1.000

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

119

120

Design Proposal

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

121

elevation east

elevation north & main entrance

122

Design Proposal

access balconies & entrance foyer

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

123

124

Design Proposal

townhouses

view from green area

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

125

Findings & Reflections The purpose of this master thesis is to initiate a discussion about cohousing in Iceland by giving a general introduction, analysing the site and place-specific issue. The ensuing design proposal for a specific site is meant as exemplary draft and does not represent the one, best solution for a cohousing community in Reykjavík - in fact the creation of such design is simply not possible without a co-design process that a the community can take part in. The way of designing is here described as “research through design” and aimed at finding out how spatial design would influence communal living.

Some of the findings may have confirmed or refuted assumptions and strategies which I laid out at the beginning of the design stage, others might have only emerged during the design process.

Social interaction As in the Narkomfin project of Moisei Ginsburg aiming for ‘social condensation’, the promotion of social interaction is a key aspect for cohousing. This is especially so in a place like Reykjavík where weather conditions and the way of life (including personal transport, city planning, ...) do not encourage informal, spontaneous meetings between citizens or neighbours. Assuming that residents of a cohousing community choose to actively engage with each other the design should facilitate social interaction and create possibilities for residents to see and meet each other. In doing so, the present design aims to generate transparency between communal and circulation spaces to improve visual contact.

The same goes for private spaces with a higher degree of publicness, like kitchens, where windows could allow for visual connection to public areas At the same time, with small design tweaks residents can be invited to dwell in certain areas for longer periods rather than just passing through. This could be pockets as seen on the access balconies or furnishing in entrance or lounge areas.

Spatial size & articulation The relation of spatial size and its articulation presents a combined finding from the design process as well as from my own housing experience.

I would argue that when a space is laid out small enough, over time it will facilitate social contact for its users since anonymous passing through space without greeting is rendered unnatural. At the same time spatial articulation could likewise contribute to more interaction between residents as it breaks big anonymous spaces down into more graspable bits and encourages passersby to spend time. In the design proposal this is f.ex. found in the columns articulating the access balconies into a composed space or the small garden shacks and greenhouses protruding from the hallway dissolving the strictly rectangular nature of the central yard.

126

Reflections

Simultaneity Simultaneity here describes that people will sooner or later start to engage in a conversation the longer they meet repeatedly in the same places. This is true when thinking about work colleagues or other members of the gym. Certainly, this interaction is facilitated when both parties have something in common and might have seen each other in some other place. Regarding cohousing this could mean that residents are likely to bond over common tasks like house chores such as gardening , communal cooking or doing laundry or over common interests like working on bikes. Eventually such bonding experiences will help with building a strong community.

68 Registers Iceland (2018) Housings in the capital region by number, size and municipalities by Years, Municipalities and Unit, data extracted 07 January 2019

Residential density

Project

Units

Plot size Residential density

Sofielunds Kollektivhuset, Malmö

45 du

0,2 ha

225 du/ha

Do it together - Cohousing in Vatnsmýri

32 du

0,28 ha

114 du/ha

Copper Lane, London

6 du

0,1 ha

60 du/ha

Lange Eng, Greater Copenhagen

54 du

1,4 ha

39 du/ha

Æblevangen, Greater Copenhagen

36 du

1,75 ha

21 du/ha

Munksøgård Ecovillage, Roskilde

100 du

8 ha

12,5 du/ha

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

urban

69 Statistics Sweden (2016) Nearly 4.8 million dwellings in Sweden, https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/ housing-construction-and-building/ housing-construction-and-conversion/dwelling-stock/pong/statistical-news/dwelling-stock-2016-12-31/, accessed 5 September 2019

suburban/ rural

During its sprawling years, Reykjavík has transformed into a far spread city with lots of suburban neighbourhoods consisting of single-family homes. Naturally this drives up the average size of a dwelling unit compared to a dense city in which citizens rather live in apartments. In 2017 the average housing unit in the Capital Region had a size of 136 m2 68 while numbers for Sweden show 68 m2 for an average apartment unit and 122 m2 for an average housing unit in one or two unit buildings.69 Comparing the numbers shows that the overall average unit in Reykjavík including apartments is even more spacious than the average detached home in Sweden. The average unit size in the design proposal is comparably low at 76,5 m2 but still offers everything a functional apartment needs. Even including all communal and circulation area into the calculation the average unit is still not larger than 106 m2. Compared with settlements from the study visits, the design proposal appears to be of rather dense nature which is coherent with its urban location. The high residential density certainly also touches on raising affordability.

127

Affordability & revenue Cohousing is generally not a tool mainly used to create affordable housing, but with a focus on affordability it could certainly be used to achieve such goals. This would possibly mean that the community would focus solely on affordability and rather disregard communal spaces as these produce overhead cost with no additional housing units. Albeit the potential of such spaces for communal life is uncontested, the financial aspect should be taken into account. However, possibly communal spaces could not only be beneficial for community life but might also contribute to the financial budget of the community. Seeing that not all community spaces can be used by residents around the clock, some of those might be opened to the public in exchange for a contribution to running expenses. In the design proposal at hand these spaces are included as a cafĂŠ/bar, a multi-purpose space and work-spaces. Renting out spaces or generating revenue through sale of products is also a very good opportunity for the community to engage with their surrounding neighbours and for new residents to get to know the house. Certainly such endeavour would require more active or ‘business-minded’ living of residents and require them to do more than just dwell in their unit.

Placement After a cohousing community-to-be has completed the process of discussing principles according to which the community will function, a site needs to be found. The localization is depending on various factors such as the chosen building typology, the mode of personal transport and possible proximity to income opportunities or public transport and the desire to interact with the greater neighbourhood. Certainly the available budget for acquisition of land is playing a role in finding a site as well.

Participatory design The importance of participatory design (co-design) presents more of a finding from literature research than from the design process as I did not work with a community at hand while creating the design proposal.

However that may be, from experience with numerous cohousing projects, there is a range of advantages when the resident-community is involved in the design process. For one, any given design can possibly made to fit better with the clients wishes and needs when they are actually asked how things need to be done. Certainly, this means working with unskilled people that do not have the same language as architects in terms of vocabulary and knowledge and requires to listen carefully and possibly hold workshops to extract answers from residents-to-be.

On the other hand, any community that is actually part of the design process will be much more likely to develop a sense of ownership over the finished project rather than just moving in to some complex that was built for them.

128

Reflections

Degree of introversion Every cohousing is characterised by its degree of introversion, surely also touching on building typology and placement. A completely inward facing community with closed perimeter structure such as BofĂŚllesskabet Lange Eng in a location with little pedestrian traffic on the street will probably lead to little interaction with neighbours and the public.

In contrast an urban development such as Spreefeld Berlin featuring communal spaces that could be rented out or used by residents and members of the public at the same time will increase interaction and friction between different user groups. While the decision about the degree of introversion is certainly up to the cohousing community, as an architect I would advocate to avoid total introversion and remember to return some of the greatness being created to the public.

Materiality & atmosphere Materiality on surfaces inside and outside the building(s) may influence user behaviour and can also be used to distinguish f.ex. a street facade from an inner facade facing a courtyard. The way people use rooms can also depend on the type of flooring and the general atmosphere in a room. Care needs to be taken as well in order to not give the settlement a feeling of institutionalism. There is certainly a more rigid framework relying on rules and agreements between residents compared to a rather free single household in which agreements are only made inside one family or with a smaller group of people. However residents who are likely to have grown up in an individualised society will still need to call this settlement home and feel comfortable using the communal spaces.

Architects should keep this in mind when proposing materials and designing spaces.

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

129

4

glossary

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

131

70 anon (n.d.) Bofællesskab, https:// da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofællesskab, accessed 10 June 2019

71 anon (n.d.) Welcome to UK Cohousing, https://cohousing.org.uk/, accessed 10 June 2019 72 Dowding, K. (n.d.) https://www. britannica.com/topic/collective-action-problem-1917157, accessed 17 July 2019

Bofællesskabet A deliberately created community consisting of fully equipped private homes, complemented by common facilities. Communities are typically planned, owned and run by the residents. The most common motivation [...] is a desire to create more and better interaction with neighbours.

The homes are often close and share a common house, common areas and other facilities. In the common houses residents cook for each other on a regular basis. It is common that dining is the most important joint activity. Other communal facilities can include laundry, pool, children’s room, offices, Internet access, TV room, workshops, guest rooms, sauna or gym.70 Cohousing Intentional communities, created and run by their residents. Each household has a self-contained, private home as well as shared community space.71 Collective action Collective action refers to action taken together by a group of people whose goal is to enhance their status and achieve a common objective.72 Common house A building or part of a building used by the entire community featuring shared spaces. These could be (but not necessarily are) facilities such as laundry room, dining hall, cinema, bike workshop etc.

Cross-laminated timber (CLT) Prefabricated, massive structural panels used for walls, ceilings and roofs built from an odd number of layers of softwood, each laminated at 90 degrees to its neighbours. The panels are dimensioned to be fit for transport in containers and on trucks.

73 anon (n.d.) Community land trust, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Community_land_trust, accessed 10 September 2019

Community land trust (CLT) A community land trust is a nonprofit corporation that develops and stewards affordable housing, community gardens [...] and other community assets on behalf of a community. CLTs balance the needs of individuals to access land and maintain security of tenure with a community’s need to maintain affordability, economic diversity and local access to essential services.73 Dwelling unit (du) Means a structure or part of a structure that is used as a home, residence or sleeping place by one person who maintains a household or by two or more persons who maintain a common household.

Housing cooperative (co-op) A housing cooperative or co-op [...] is a legal entity [...] which owns real estate, consisting of one or more residential buildings; it is one type of housing tenure. [...] The cooperative is membership-based, with mem-

132

Annex

bership granted by way of a share purchase in the cooperative. Each shareholder in the legal entity is granted the right to occupy one housing unit. A primary advantage of the housing cooperative is the pooling of the members’ resources so that their buying power is leveraged, thus lowering the cost per member in all the services and products associated with home ownership.74

74 anon (n.d.) Housing cooperative, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Housing_cooperative, accessed 10 September 2019

Human scale Human scale means the referring to the human body when designing spaces. The concept was heavily promoted by architect Le Corbusier in his book “The Modulor - A Harmonious Measure to the Human Scale Universally Applicable to Architecture and Mechanics� and later on refined by Danish architect and city planner Jan Gehl.75

75 TEDx Talks (2015) In Search of the Human Scale | Jan Gehl | TEDxKEA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= Cgw9oHDfJ4k, accessed 10 September 2019

Live+Work / Co-living Coliving is a type of intentional community providing shared housing for people with similar intentions. Coliving schemes contain rather small private bedrooms and a number of shared spaces. The community might be coming together for activities such as meals and discussion in the common living areas, yet may extend to shared workspace and collective endeavours such as living more sustainably.76 Bedrooms are rented out to residents individually.

76 anon (n.d.) Coliving, https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coliving, accessed 10 September 2019

Studio A small apartment which combines the living room, bedroom, and kitchen into a single room Supported living / Extra care Supported living [...] refers to a range of services and community living arrangements (CLA) designed with (and for) individuals with disabilities and their families to support disabled citizens to attain or retain their independence. [...]77

77 anon (n.d.) Supported living, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supported_living, accessed 10 September 2019

1 bedroom A single apartment with one bedroom, a kitchen, a living room and a bathroom

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

133

5

references This list of publications presents the full scope I have used during the creation of this master thesis. Not all works have been referenced to the actual text, but I still think that all have majorly contributed to finding the topic and reaching a general idea covering cohousing. I have decided to list every publication, wether referenced to this thesis or, because I imagine that other researchers coming after me might profit of this ground work.

I would highly recommend to read the ones annoted with a star (*).

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

135

Books & Booklets Becker, Annette; Kienbaum, Laura; AA Projects and Cachola Schmal, Peter (2015) Building and living in communities, Birkhäuser Hertzberger, H. (2010) Space and the architect - Lessons in architecture 2, 1st ed. 010 Publishers id22: Institute for Creative Sustainability (2012) CoHousing cultures, Handbook for self-organized, community-oriented and sustainable housing, Jovis Verlag id22: Institute for Creative Sustainability (2017) CoHousing inclusive Self-organized, community-led housing for all, Jovis Verlag Maak, Niklas (2015) Living Complex - From zombie city to the new communal, Hirmer Publishers * McCarmant, Kathryn and Durrett, Charles (1994) Cohousing - A contemporary approach to housing ourselves McCarmant, Kathryn and Durrett, Charles (2011) Creating cohousing Building sustainable communities * Scotthanson, Chris and Kelly (2005) The cohousing handbook - Building a place for community, Revised Edition * Space 10 + Urgent.Agency (2018) Imagine, Issue 2 - Exploring the brave new world of shared living * Spiro, Melford E. (1963) Kibbutz venture in utopia, 1st ed. Schocken Valsson, Trausti (2003) Planning in Iceland - From the settlement to present times, University of Iceland Press, Vestbro, Dick Urban (1982) Kollektivhus från enkökshus till bogemenskap Vestbro, Dick Urban (editor) (2010) Living together - Cohousing ideas and realities around the world, Proceedings from the international collaborative housing conference in Stockholm

Reports Belk, Charles (2006) Cohousing communities: A sustainable approach to housing development, UC Davis City of Reykjavík (2013) Aðalskipulag Reykjavíkur, Part B, p.244ff.

136

Annex

Grazioli, Margherita (2017) The right to the city in the post-welfare metropolis - Community building, autonomous infrastructures and urban commons in Rome’s self-organised housing squats, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leicester Linden, Palm (1992) Kollektivhuset och mellanzonen. Om rumslig struktur och socialt liv (Collective housing and intermediary space. About spatial structure and social life). Ph.D. thesis, Lund University, Building Functions Analysis, School of Architecture.

Precedo, Pedro (2009) Social connection and urban fabric in Reykjavík at the dawn of the global economic downturn, BA thesis, Listaháskóli Íslands Reykjavík City (2014) Reykjavík Municipal Plan 2010 - 2030 Studio Weave (2018) Living Closer - The many faces of co-housing * Tummers, Lidewij (2017) Learning from co-housing initiatives - Between passivhaus engineers and active inhabitants, Dissertation, TU Delft * Vestbro, Dick Urban (2000) From collective housing to cohousing - a summary of research, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 17, pp. 164-78

Articles & Papers Bradley, Karen (2015) Open-source urbanism - Creating, multiplying and managing urban commons, available at: https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/ index.php/footprint/article/view/901 Bradley, Karen and Pargman, Daniel (2018) The sharing economy as the commons of the 21st century Brenton, Maria. (2010) Potential benefits of cohousing for older people: A literature review, Elder Woman Brenton, Maria. (2013). Senior cohousing communities – an alternative approach for the UK? Cooper Marcus, Clare (2000) Site planning, building design and a sense of community - an analysis of six cohousing schemes in Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands, Journal of Architectural & Planning Research. Vol. 17 Issue 2, p146 Fishman, Robert (2018) The Global Crisis of Affordable Housing - Architecture versus Neoliberalism, Architectural Design Magazine, Volume 88, Issue 4, Housing as intervention: Architecture towards social equity pp.22 - 29

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

137

Hede, Helena (2016) In search of ‘a chosen community’ - A study on self-initiated co-housing projects in Berlin, Lund University Jarvis, Helen (2015) Towards a deeper understanding of the social architecture of co-housing: evidence from the UK, USA and Australia, Urban Research & Practice Lasner, Matthew Gordon (2018) Architecture’s Progressive Imperative, Architectural Design Magazine, Volume 88, Issue 4, Housing as intervention: Architecture towards social equity pp.14 - 21 Kubey, Karen (2018) Housing for the common good, Architectural Design Magazine, Volume 88, Issue 4, Housing as intervention: Architecture towards social equity pp.7 - 13 Reynarsson, Bjarni (1999) The planning of Reykjavik, Iceland: Three ideological waves- a historical overview, Planning Perspectives, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp.49 - 67 Rhee, Polyanna (2018) Beyond Green - Environmental building technologies for social and economic equity, Architectural Design Magazine, Volume 88, Issue 4, Housing as intervention: Architecture towards social equity pp.94 - 101 Sargisson, Lucy (2000) Utopian Bodies and the Politics of Transgression, London & New York: Routledge Tummers, Lidewij (2015) The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in Europe: A critical review of co-housing research, Urban Studies White-Harvey, Robert J. (2018) Cohousing: A scandinavian longhouse, or a traditional approach to modern housing?

Williams, Jo (2005) Designing neighbourhoods for social interaction: The Case of Cohousing, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 10, p195-227

Videos TEDx Talks (2015) In Search of the Human Scale | Jan Gehl | TEDxKEA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= Cgw9oHDfJ4k, accessed 10 September 2019

Surveys Space 10 (2017) One shared house 2030 - A collaborative survey around co-living, https: //space10.io/project/one-shared-house-2030/

138

Annex

Data anon (2019) Weather statistics for Reykjavik, Capital Region, https:// www.yr.no/place/Iceland/Capital_Region/Reykjavik~6295712/statistics. html, accessed 11 July 2019 anon (2019) Wind statistics at Reykjavik airport, https://de.windfinder. com/windstatistics/reykjavik_airport, accessed 11 July 2019 Registers Iceland (2018) Housings in the capital region by number, size and municipalities by Years, Municipalities and Unit, data extracted 07 January 2019

Websites Alice Demurtas (2017) 90% airbnb increase: 44% of rental market listed, https://grapevine.is/news/2017/05/31/90-airbnb-increase-44-of-rentalmarket-listed/, accessed 11 July 2019 Andie Fontaine (2018) Immigrants In Iceland Increase By 50% From 2012, https://grapevine.is/news/2018/12/05/immigrants-in-iceland-increase-by-50-from-2012/, accessed 9 July 2019 anon (2018) Ask the expert: How much does it cost to rent in Reykjavík?, https://icelandmag.is/article/ask-expert-how-much-does-it-cost-rentreykjavik-hint-its-not-cheap, accessed 11 July 2019 anon (n.d.) Bofællesskab, https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofællesskab, accessed 10 June 2019 anon (n.d.) Welcome to UK Cohousing, https://cohousing.org.uk/, accessed 10 June 2019 anon (n.d.) Coliving, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coliving, accessed 10 September 2019 anon (n.d.) Community land trust, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust, accessed 10 September 2019 anon (n.d.) Copper Lane Cohousing - project history, https://copperlanecohousing.wordpress.com/scheme, accessed 28 May 2019 anon (n.d.) Familistère, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familist%C3%A8 re, accessed 18 July 2019 anon (n.d.) History of Iceland, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ Iceland, accessed 19 August 2019

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

139

anon (n.d.) Housing cooperative, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_ cooperative, accessed 10 September 2019 anon (n.d.) Hull House, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_House, accessed 18 July 2019 anon (n.d.) Iceland, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland, accessed 2 September 2019 anon (n.d.) Lange Eng daily operation, https://www.langeeng.dk/fakta/organisering/, accessed 31 May 2019 anon (2012) Live/work units Q & A DCP Section 10.5n, https://www. planningresource.co.uk/article/1209099/live-work-units-q---dcp-section-105, accessed 24 July 2019 anon (n.d.) Kibbutz, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz, accessed 19 July 2019 anon (2019) Iceland: Major Urban Settlements, http://citypopulation. de/Iceland-UA.html, accessed 8 August 2019 anon (2015) Millions of people spend two or more hours commuting a day, https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/09/million-peopletwo-hours-commuting-tuc-study, accessed 13 March 2019 anon (n.d.) Narkomfin-Kommunehaus, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/arkomfin-Kommunehaus, accessed 18 July 2019 anon (n.d.) One kitchen house, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eink%C3% BCchenhaus#Letchworth_1909, accessed 18 July 2019 anon (n.d.) Phalanstère, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalant%C3%A8re, accessed 18 July 2019 anon (2015) Raising kids and running a household: How working parents share the load, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/11/04/raising-kids-and-running-a-household-how-working-parents-share-the-load, accessed 14 March 2019 anon (n.d.) Settlement movement, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_movement, accessed 18 July 2019 anon (n.d.) Social condenser, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_condenser, accessed 18 July 2019 anon (n.d.) Supported living, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supported_ living, accessed 24 July 2019

140

Annex

anon (n.d.) The UK Co-housing network, https://cohousing.org.uk/ about/about-cohousing/, accessed 25 July 2019 anon (n.d.) Tulou, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulou, accessed 18 July 2019 anon (n.d.) Unité d‘Habitation, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit%C 3%A9_d%E2%80%99Habitation, accessed 18 July 2019 Birkir Blær Ingólfsson (2017) Reykjavík langdýrasta borg Norðurlandanna, https://www.ruv.is/frett/reykjavik-langdyrasta-borg-nordurlandanna, accessed 9 July 2019 Dowding, Keith (n.d.) https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectiveaction-problem-1917157, accessed 17 July 2019 Fraas, Sanne, (n.d.) Lange Eng historie, https://www.langeeng.dk/fakta/ historie/, accessed 31 May 2019 Henley, N. (2017) Cohousing in Denmark - A visit to Saettedammen near Copenhagen, https://cohabitas.com/news/128/coliving/Cohousing+in+Denmark+-+A+visit+to+Saettedammen%2C+the+world%27s+first+co-h ousing+community, accessed 22 July 2019 Icelandic Tourist Board (2018) Numbers of foreign visitors, https:// www.ferdamalastofa.is/en/recearch-and-statistics/numbers-of-foreignvisitors, accessed 19 August 2019 Jónsdóttir, Gerður. (2011) How Reykjavík Got To Be What It Is, https:// grapevine.is/mag/articles/2011/10/13/howreykjavikgottobewhatitis/, accessed 20 August 2019 Moore, Rowan, (2014) Copper Lane review – an appealing, harmonious, cost-effective model for communal living, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/aug/31/copper-lane-review-cohousing-stoke-newington-henley-halebrown-rorrison, accessed 28 May 2019 Rodgers, Lucy (2018) Climate change: The massive CO2 emitter you may not know about, https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844, accessed 12 July 2019 Statistics Sweden (2016) Nearly 4.8 million dwellings in Sweden, https:// www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/housing-construction-and-building/housing-construction-and-conversion/dwelling-stock/pong/statistical-news/dwelling-stock-2016-12-31/, accessed 5 September 2019 Stead, Naomi, (2016) Affordable, sustainable, high-quality urban housing? It’s not an impossible dream, http://theconversation.com/afford-

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

141

able-sustainable-high-quality-urban-housing-its-not-an-impossibledream-57958, accessed 4 September 2019 Theodorou, Maria (2015) https://newspitalfields.wordpress.com/2015/11/ 20/lange-eng-collective-living-2/, accessed 31 May 2019 user: alvin (2016) Introduction to Co-housing in Denmark, https:// newspitalfields.wordpress.com/2016/02/10/introduction-to-co-housing-in-denmark/, accessed 22 July 2019 Wilkinson, Giselle (2015) Lange Eng Cohousing community, https://4allsentientbeings.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/scotland-to-denmark/, accessed 31 May 2019 Wilkinson, Giselle, (2015) Munksøgürd: A Model village - a Village of different models, https://4allsentientbeings.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/ munksogard-a-model-village-a-village-of-different-models/, accessed 28 May 2019 Yvon Bertrand (2009) Urbanisme Languedocien: la Circulade, http:// adicab.over-blog.com/article-36009970.html, accessed 18 July 2019

142

Annex

Do it together - Cohousing as a tool for finding better ways of living

143