International Collaborative Housing Conference, May 2010, Stockholm and Cohousing Tour of Sweden and Denmark

Sarah Berger, Project Coordinator of the UK Cohousing Network, attended the Stockholm International Collaborative Housing Conference (read more) organised by Kollektivhus NU followed by a tour of eighteen cohousing projects in Sweden and Denmark. This brief report consists of a few observations and highlights and is necessarily somewhat subjective and anecdotal. (Photos of sites referred to below will follow.) Fuller accounts of the conference and some conference presentations can be found on the Kollectivhus Now website.

The conference
The purpose of the conference was to bring together researchers, housing companies, politicians and activists in order to discuss experiences of different models of collaborative living. Twenty countries were represented although surprisingly few from Denmark. It is worth noting that one of the outcomes of the conference was a commitment by the national cohousing associations represented at the conference to translate some of the material on their own websites to facilitate international access.

Background
I had assumed that development of cohousing in Sweden and Denmark would be similar and that each would have greatly influenced the other but this appears not to be the case. Their histories are very different and the building design and appearance are unalike too.

I visited many wonderful and inspiring cohousing projects in Sweden and Denmark but my trip dispelled a common myth that cohousing in Scandinavia is relatively straight forward and familiar to the general population. In the UK we have often asked ' Why can't we be like the Scandinavians?' But no, apparently it is a hard slog. A high percentage of forming groups fail, as in the UK. There has been the same need for pioneers and 'burning souls' as in the UK and USA. It can take five to ten years to get off the ground. Even in Denmark only 0.5% of housing is cohousing.

The Danish history and model of cohousing is much better known internationally than the Swedish model largely because of the pioneering role of McCamant and Durrett in taking the Danish cohousing model to the USA and around the world via their cohousing books. (See here and here ) The 120 established cohousing projects in the USA are testament to the success of this model. However, it is time the imbalance was redressed as there is much to be learnt from the Swedish experience.

In both Sweden and Denmark supportive local and national politicians including mayors have frequently played a powerful role in the development of cohousing planning and financing policies and some have lived in cohousing themselves. A number of cohousing groups have been made up largely of architects, planners and other housing professionals who were well networked with key people in power. Despite this the road was often long and rocky. Many compromises had to be made to get the schemes built.

Cohousing in both Sweden and Denmark has had considerable public subsidy and support from local and national government. But over the last decade both suffered from recent neo-liberal national government policies including right-to-buy legislation. However, cohousing activists in both countries expect a more supportive political environment after forthcoming elections (September 2010 in Sweden and 2011 in Denmark ).

Swedish Cohousing
The 45 cohousing schemes currently in existence in Sweden are mainly the result of civil society campaigns and positive responses from public housing authorities during the 1980s. The projects are concentrated in the main urban centres. Today the trend is again turning in favour of collaborative housing and in the last five years six new units have been built, and more are on their way. The Swedish Collaborative Housing Association, Kollektivhus NU, has an active collaboration with SABO – the umbrella organisation Swedish Association of Municipal Housing Companies. During the last ten years new aspects have been added, such as housing for the “second half of life” and planning for more sustainable lifestyles.

The Swedish cohousing model is characterized by a strong involvement by municipal housing companies and by political initiatives combined with efforts from independent non-government organizations. The fact that these companies offer rental housing means that cohousing is accessible also to single parents and retired people with limited incomes.

Swedish cohousing is mainly in blocks of flats. Some were specifically designed as cohousing, others involved converting part of an existing block of flats such as Slottet in Lund and Tullstugan Kollektivhus in Stockholm. My impression was that this sometimes resulted in a lower level of communality but it is a cheaper and easier way of doing cohousing and involves less risk for housing companies as it can easily be converted back into conventional housing if necessary. The usual pattern is for the communal facilities to be on the ground floor and basement with individual units on the upper floors. Sometimes there is a communal roof patio.

The average size of individual homes in both Sweden and Denmark seems small, one way of keeping them affordable. The authorities have allowed exceptions to the usual planning requirements because of the communal space available. At BoActive Landgangen, a senior cohousing project set up in 2008 in Malmo, Sweden, a one bed unit is 58 sqm; a two bed unit is 70 sqm. In Tre Portar, an intergenerational scheme in Stockholm, a three 3 bed is 87sqm, a four bed unit is 97 sqm. I am interested to know if we could (or should) convince people in UK to accept this? The senior cohousing units I visited, while small, were beautifully designed and seemed to work well. But I felt several of the family units in intergenerational housing were rather overcrowded and cramped. However, there are often long waiting lists and the units are sought after. While some residents told us they needed more space, they said they were prepared to adapt because they were so keen to stay in the cohousing scheme.

Danish Cohousing
In Denmark the norm is for individual houses and a common house to be built overlooking a courtyard or communal garden with car parking on the periphery. There is often a private patio or small garden on one side of each home with the other entrance opening onto a shared street, courtyard or communal garden.

The following is an extract from the conference presentation by Margaret Kahler, director of director of AeldreSagen (DaneAge)

“Most Danish collective housing units for senior citizens consist of forward-looking residences with their own kitchen and bathroom and common rooms and surrounding areas. Typically, the residents will give up part of their own housing area to the common areas in order to reduce the construction costs. Today, most collective housing units are similar: low, terraced houses, small front garden, centrally situated common house. A type of housing which is close to the heart of Danes.”

Most collective housing for senior citizens is situated in small and medium-sized provincial towns in the area between town and country. So far there are few of them in the large cities – especially Copenhagen where there are fewer building sites for sale and at much higher prices than outside the capital. Most new collective housing units are terraced or cluster houses built around a common area where the common house is centrally positioned. Some have small front gardens as a transition between the private and the common areas. Many have their own back door and a terrace behind the house where they can be alone. Absolutely necessary.

There are about 350 collective housing units for senior citizens with 5-6000 residents. The smallest examples of collective housing have five and the largest has 106 residences. Most of them between have fifteen and thirty residences around a common house. There are about 140 intergenerational collective housing units where children, young people and elderly people live together. Only one per cent of Danish people of 50+ live in collective housing, but many would like to. Sense of community is the key word; good neighbours, being able to support and help each other and arranging activities together are the attractive aspects. In AeldreSagen's 2007 residence survey, between fifteen and twenty per cent would like to move into collective housing or senior-citizen houses, large collective housing units in towns. Slightly more women than men want to move into collective housing. The majority prefer mixed-age collective housing.

Survey of Asbo, Denmark - a collective housing unit for senior citizens.
In 1999, the non-profit housing association Lejerbo built Asbo in the Danish municipality of Odsherred together with the future residents. The 23 residents are between 60 and 90 years old. The residents are all happy with their lives in Asbo, and their well-being is obvious from their perception now of their own health, which is, in fact, better than their self assessment in 1999. Today, just over half of the residents are active in associations. Two to four times each week half of them attend evening classes or participate in sports or exercise. They feel safe and say for example, "Here you will never lie for three days with your curtains drawn without somebody coming to see if you are OK".

Results indicate that living in Asbo is a good cure against loneliness and against needing help with the small things. Before moving in, 85% said that they often felt lonely compared with 10% in 2009. Similarly, before moving in, 70% said they often needed help for small repair jobs, such as shopping, compared with 0% (none) in 2009.

Munksogaard - intergenerational cohousing combined with senior cohousing
(See photos here)

Munksogaard is an eco/village cohousing scheme adjacent to the university in Roskilde, west of Copenhagen, Denmark, thirty minutes by train. Built ten years ago it has 100 units and 250 residents. Forty homes are owned and sixty are rented. There are five cohousing clusters - a) senior rented b) young people rented c) intergenerational owner occupiers d) intergenerational shared ownership (% owned with mortgage, rest in rent) and e) intergenerational rented. Each cluster has its own common house in the same design with guest room/children's play room & laundry. Each operates its own cooking/cleaning rota according to its own system. Everyone is on two work groups; one is an inter-cluster work group and one is within one's own cluster. That is the main way of bonding the whole of Munksogaard.

There is very low turnover. Only one person has moved out of the owner occupied cluster since the start. There is a long waiting list for Munksogaard and the residents select who comes in. The eco features include car sharing, grey water recycling in underground tank for washing, sand filter rain water, solar panels, adobe common house and vegetable growing. Living costs are lower than normal.

Six new cohousing communities have been built adjacent to Munksogaard in the last six years and the success of Munksogaard has also influenced the provision of mainstream housing in Denmark. The above six schemes have many different architectural styles but all with central pedestrianised street(s), cars on the edge and a common house. Several seemed to have rather small houses. They have fewer environmental features than Munksogaard.

Other issues
A few other issues, in no particular order, arising from the conference and my visit to eighteen cohousing schemes in Sweden and Denmark.

• The central role of the regular preparation, cooking and eating of meals together is found in all the cohousing schemes reported on and visited. Virtually all cohousing communities have rotas and teams for cooking and cleaning the communal areas; this system is routine and mostly unproblematic. In many cases the system has been operating successfully for decades. The frequency of communal meals varied from two a week to six days a week with an average of three to five. Participation in the cooking and cleaning rota is obligatory but attendance at meals is optional. On average an individual's turn to cook and clean comes up every four to six weeks.
  
• There is potential for cohousing to be incorporated into mainstream masterplanning of housing developments. Its happening in Denmark already e.g. around Skraplanet at Esjeberg, near Malov. and in Roskilde. Why not in the UK ? We need to work with planners and local authority politicians. The key components include: clusters of houses around a central garden/plaza/courtyard, a community centre or common house, car free zones and parking on the periphery.
  
• Research shows that it is the post-materialistic class who is interested in cohousing. This is who we should be targeting.
  
• Cohousing needs to be reframed. It is now at the margins of society. We need to be seen as social innovation pioneers
  
• A message to architects and planners from Professor Göran Cars – Most (Swedish) people live in households of one or two (different from when we grew up). We need cohousing to provide a group context for bringing up children. The uptake of use of public venues, e.g. cafes, parks, etc. is increasing which shows we need and want them. But currently developers, architects and planners produce nice homes for people to watch TV in, use computers and communicate via mobiles.
  

Sarah Berger
UK Cohousing Network
www.cohousing.org.uk

14.06.2010