This is an electronic reprint of the original article.This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

This material is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.

Horelli, LiisaRevisiting gendered co-housing from the nordic perspective

Published in:Conference proceedings of the IV Congresso Internazionale dell'Abitare Collettivo Sostenible

Published: 01/01/2020

Please cite the original version:Horelli, L. (2020). Revisiting gendered co-housing from the nordic perspective. In Conference proceedings of theIV Congresso Internazionale dell'Abitare Collettivo Sostenible (pp. 47-52)

Dipartimento di Architettura, Design e UrbanisticaUniversità degli Studi di Sassari

Alghero2020

EditaLaboratorio de la Vivienda Sostenible del Siglo XXIwww.laboratoriovivienda21.com

EditoresJosep Maria Montaner, Zaida Muxí Martínez y Graziano Brau Pani.

Coordinación editorialGraziano Brau Pani

Diseño gráficoFrancesc Polop disseny (2014); adecuación a la versión 2020: Raúl Reséndiz Gómez

© De los textos: sus autores© De las imágenes: sus autores

Equipo coordinador del congreso:Josep Maria MontanerZaida Muxí MartínezGraziano Brau PaniMaurizio SerraDelia PasellaMarcela Marques AblaArnaldo Bibo CecchiniMassimo FaiferriValentina TaluFabrizio PuscedduSamanta Bartocci

Diseñado en MéxicoImpreso en Sardegna, Italia.

ISBN 978-84-09-20369-7

Edición no comercial

Reservados todos los derechos. El contenido de esta obra está protegido por la Ley con penas de prisión y/o multas, ade-más de las correspondientes indemnizaciones por daños y perjuicios, para quienes reprodujeren, plagiaren, distribuyeren o comunicaren públicamente, en todo o en parte, una obra literaria, artística o científica, o su transformación, interpreta-ción o ejecución artística fijada en cualquier tipo de soporte o comunicada a través de cualquier medio, sin la preceptiva autorización.

Los editores no se pronuncian ni expresa ni implícitamente res-pecto a la exactitud de la información tanto gráfica como escri-ta contenida en este libro, razón por la cual no pueden asumir ningún tipo de responsabilidad en caso de error u omisión.

Comité científico

Alessandra Cireddu (EAAD-ITESM)Aljoša Dekleva (AA)Álvaro Gutierrez (EAAD-ITESM)Ana Falú (FADU-UNC)Andrea Tapia (UNRN)Arnaldo Bibo CecchiniBruno Messina (UNICT)Carlo Moccia (PoliBa)Carlos M. Hernández (EAAD-ITESM)Christine van Sluys (PUCE)Daniel Escotto (FA-UNAM) Daniel MovillaDaniela Arias (MLVSSXXI)David H. Falagan (UPC)Delia Pasella (MLVSSXXI)Juan Ignacio del Cueto (UNAM)Elia Gutiérrez Mozo (EPSAlicante)Esteban Jaramillo (MLVSSXXI)Fabrizio Pusceddu (DADU-UNISS)Fernando Agrasar (ETSA)Gianluigi Mondaini (UNIVPM)Giovanni La Varra (UNIUD)Giuseppe Las Casas (UNIBAS)Graziano Brau Pani (ESARQ)Inés Moisset (CONICET)Jaume Blancafort (ETSE)Jon Begiristain (UPV/EHV)Jordi Honey Roses (UBC)Josep Bohigas (ETSAB)Josep Maria Montaner (ETSAB)Juan Carlos Bamba (UCSG)Marcela Abla (CIAUD)Marco D’Annuntis (UNICAM)Marta Morelli (PUCP) Massimo Faiferri (DADU)Massimo Ferrari (PoliMi)Maurizio Serra (DADU)Mosè Ricci (UNITN) Paola DiBiagi (UNITS)Paolo Mazzoleni (PoliMi)Paolo Mellano (PoliTo)Patricia Reus (ETSAE)Patricia Pedrosa (CIEG-UBI)Patrizia Montini (IUAV)Pedro Rodrigues (CIAUD)Renata Coradin (MLVSSXXI)Renato Bocchi (IUAV)Renato Capozzi (UNINA)Roser Casanovas (MLVSSXXI)Ruth Verde Zein (FAU-UPM)Samanta Bartocci (DADU)Sebàstiàn Irarrázaval (PUCC)Stefano Guidarini (PoliMi)Sharif Kahatt (FAU-PUCP) Valentina Talu (DADU)Valter Caldana (CAU/SP)Verena AndreattaVincenzo Melluso (UNIPA)Yelitza Naranjo (UCSG)Zaida Muxí (ETSAB)Zoran DjuKanovic (Architecture Faculty, Belgrado)

ÍNDICE

PRESENTACIÓN

Presentazione IV Congresso Internazionale dell’Abitare Collettivo Sostenibile, Alghero 2020.Josep María Montaner y Zaida Muxí

CONFERENCIAS

Sistemas y políticas de vivienda pública.Josep Maria Montaner

A New Era for Social Housing.Paul Karakusevic

Hacia un urbanismo holístico: legado y topicalidad del pensamiento de John F. C. Turner en los asentamientos autoconstruidos del Cono Norte, Lima. El Ermitaño y Pampa de Cueva como casos de estudio para la activación de memoria urbana.Kathrin Golda-Pongratz

Verso un altro paesaggio urbano in Africa. Il compound come forma dell’abitare. Patrizia Montini Zimolo

Revisiting gendered co-housing from the nordic perspective.Liisa Horelli

Red comunitaria de cuidados en el entorno de la vivienda.Roser Casanovas

Investigar en vivienda hoy: entre la memoria y lo tecnológico.Carmen Espegel

R50 in Berlin: Jesko Fezer in conversation with Aljosa Dekleva.Aljosa Dekleva y Jesko Fezer

Nei quartieri pubblici, tra orti, frutteti e giardini. Gli spazi aperti come paesaggi sociali.Paola Di Biagi

YO, ELLOS y los Urban Menus.Laura Spinadel

11

15

21

27

37

47

55

61

67

75

83

PONENCIAS

REVISIÓN HISTÓRICA

Introducción de Josep María Montaner

La planta libre: Una solución flexible para la Vivienda mínima moderna. Camilo Andrés Garcés Bravo / Medellín, Colombia

La vivienda de interés social en Brasil y el arquitecto Clóvis IlgenfritzCassya Netto Vargas / Porto Alegre, Brazil

Habitação Coletiva Pré-fabricada de Concreto Armado no Brasil.Isabella Silva de Serro Azul y Maria Augusta Justi Pisani / Sao Paulo, Brazil

Experiencias en torno a la vivienda del movimiento moderno en México. Juan Pablo Rodriguez Méndez y Jaell Durán Herrera / Ciudad de México, México

Arquitetura da habitação popular: Estudio de caso da Vila do Iapi, Porto.Isadora Riboli, Letícia de Andrade Perin y Raquel Rodrigues Lima / Porto Alegre, Brazil

Procesos y transformaciones a la vivienda colectiva promovida por el estado mexicano.Ernesto Alva Martínez y Mariana Borja / Ciudad de México, México

Lo Stem come modello di crescita della città.Sabrina Scalas / Alghero, Italia

Architettura e partecipazione. Due progetti di Gonçalo Byrne. (Lisbona, Setúbal 1971/1979).Giorgio Peghin / Cagliari, Italia

The Language of Living.Words for Giving Form to the FutureAntonio Alberto Clemente / Pescara, Italia

Casas Sim! Santiago Gomes / Torino, Italia

Runcorn – Un prototipo urbano.Libero Carlo Palazzolo / Venezia, Italia

Progettare case per tutti, case di tutti. Il Gallaratese di Aldo Rossi, 1967-1972Claudia Tinazzi / Milano, Italia

O papel de Carmen Portinho na divulgação do conhecimento da habitação e da importância profissional do urbanismo no movimento moderno.Marcela Marques Abla / Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

93

94

100

104

110

116

122

128

134

140

144

150

156

162

167

168

172

178

184

190

196

202

208

214

218

224

230

236

VIVIENDA QUE HACE CIUDAD

Introducción de Massimo Faiferri

Mulheres e movimentos sociais de moradia na cidade de São Paulo. Aline Nassaralla Regino, Ana Gabriela Godinho Lima, Débora Sanches y Rodrigo Mindlin Loeb / São Paulo, Brazil S.H.A.PE. Il progetto social housing Ater Pescara. Erica Scalcione y Fabrizio Chella / Pescara, Italia

El barrio, el edificio y la vivienda. Tres escalas para la sostenibilidad. Viviana Colautti / Córdoba, Argentina

La vivienda colectiva como catalizador urbano en el barrio de Analco.Alejandra Candelaria Frías y Berenice De Dios Sandoval / Guadalajara, México

De la evaluación a las directrices de diseño.Diego Alejandro Velandia / Bogotá, Colombia

Architecture of Emptiness in “Favelas”. Dinah Papi Guimaraens, Breno Platais, Denise Santos Crespo Ferreira, Renan Santos Marques, Carolina Camargo de Jesus y Sofia Eder / Niterói, Brazil

Procesos de generación colectiva y participativa del hábitat espontáneo.Sandra Irene Prieto González, Carlos Misael Colorado López y Laura Mendoza Kaplan / Xalapa, México

Habitar una antigua Barbacana.Políticas de vivienda. La ciudad al servicio de todosJavier Muñoz Godino / Granada, España

Sostener la construcción del futuro de la ciudad. Formatos arqutectónicos para el “Bloque Manzana” residencial Leonardo Rosa Pace y Emilio Tomás Sessa / La Plata, Argentina

Proyecto Cubiertas Mosaico. Hagamos sostenibles nuestras cubiertas. Barcelona + Sostenible: Proyectos por el ClimaLluïsa Arranz Diez / Vilanova i la Geltrú, España

Vivienda colectiva moderna del siglo XX en latinoamérica.El monoblock: aportes proyectuales para habitar el presente María Cristina Carasatorre, Valeria Pagani y Susana Tuler / La Plata, Argentina O Urban Design Code na UK como metodologia para aplicar no ensino do projeto de habitação social com ênfase na conexão entre o processo de design e o produto final construído. Maria Lucia Vianna Pecly / Rio de Janeiro, Brazil No contrafluxo: três décadas de produção habitacional na região central de São Paulo.Elisabete França y Maria Teresa Diniz Maziero / São Paulo, Brazil

242

246

252

258

264

270

276

280

286

292

298

302

308

314

320

324

329

330

334

340

344

350

356

Deterioro y obsolesencia de la producción inicial de edificios multifamiliares de vivienda en la Ciudad de México: reflexiones a partir del sismo de 2017.Natalia Fernanda Ponce Arancibia / Ciudad de México, México

CoHousing y nuevas colectividades residenciales. Manifiesto vivo para la ciudad del mañanaPascual Pérez y Iñaki Alonso / Madrid, España Evaluación del barrio de Vistabella desde una perspectiva cotidiana y emocional. Patricia Reus y Jaume Blancafort / Cartagena, España

Decadência e regeneração do centro histórico de São Paulo (1870-2020).Paulo Bruna / São Paulo, Brazil When time matters: Mid-term housing provision after disasters. Camilla Pezzica y Valerio Cutini / Pisa, Italia

Indeterminate and flexible architectures. “La Casa” che fa citta’. Scale di riqualificazione: quartiere, edificio e alloggio Cristiana Cellucci y Michele di Sivo / Pisa, Italia

How to tackle energy poverty in social housing through energy behaviour-driven strategies.Angela Santangelo y Simona Tondelli / Bologna, Italia

Il gioco “serio” negli spazi pubblici della città storica.Filippo Angelucci, Giovanni Mataloni, Federico Bulfone Gransinigh, Claudia Di Girolamo, Donato Palumbo y Maria Elena Sigismondi / Pescara, Italia

L’abitare tra accoglienza e integrazione. Esperienze didattiche mediterraneeAdriana Sarro / Palermo, Italia

Case popolari per i senzatetto in Viale Augusto a Napoli. Paola Galante / Napoli, Italia

Los modelos son reales: Sustentabilidad y vivienda análisis de co-beneficios en Guadalajara, México y Curitiba, Brasil. Dulce Garcia / Guadalajara, México

L’abitare collettivo e la città pubblica nel Dopoguerra.Alcune riletture sulle esperienze di Giuseppe SamonàLaura Pujia / Alghero, Italia

Para no olvidar. El CTM Fidel Velazquez: la dimensión humana de la vivienda que hace ciudad.Graziano Brau Pani, Sabina Selli, Maite Varela, Paola Castañeda y Erick Schmidth / Guadalajara, México y Alghero, Italia Abitare alla Milanese. Progetto di riconversione dello Scalo Farini in quartiere residenziale.Massimo Ferrari / Piacenza, Italia

Case e città. Il caso studio Pelip Housing in Red Location Cultural Precinct, Port Elizabeth, Sud Africa.Samanta Bartocci y Lino Cabras / Alghero, Italia

Social housing nei centri urbani minori e rurali soggetti a fenomeni di spopolamento. Il caso della SardegnaMassimo Faiferri y Fabrizio Pusceddu / Alghero, Italia

CUESTIONES SOCIALES Y ECONÓMICAS

Introducción de Marcela Marques Abla

De la vivienda en venta a la vivienda en renta: ¿una estrategia viable de vivienda intra-urbana asequible para repoblar el municipio de Guadalajara?Eugenio Arriaga y Andrés Ampudia / Guadalajara, México

Habitação social coletiva, Osasco, Região Metropolitana de São Paulo: COPROMO Gilda Collet Bruna, Célia Regina M. Meirelles y Luiz Guilherme Rivera de Castro / São Paulo, Brazil

Os projetos de habitação colaborativa no território rural francês.Modelos ecológicos para habitar a urbanizaçao dispersaIvan Mazel / Grenoble, Francia

Estructuras del habitar: manifestaciones de convivencia, privacidad y apropiación en la vivienda vertical de media densidad en costa rica.Kevin Viales Montero / Costa Rica

Desarrollos cerrados y vida cotidiana en el barrio de Huentitán el Alto (Guadalajara, México). Un análisis desde la perspectiva de géneroAlessandra Cireddu y Verónica Livier Díaz Núñez / Guadalajara, México

NeighborHub. Un circuito aperto di spazi per usi temporanei e a rotazione, per un distretto culturale diffuso nei quartieri di Is Mirrionis e San Michele a Cagliari.Ivan Blecic y Valeria Saiu / Cagliari, Italia

NORMATIVA Y GESTIÓN

Introducción de David H. Falagán

La equidad habitacional. Begoña Serrano Lanzarote y Alberto Rubio Garrido / Valencia, España

Memoria social del espacio público en las favelas. Una ucronia llamada Manguinhos.Carolina Dardi y Cristian Sigulin / Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Mi barrio es mi casa. La gestión como un proceso colectivo y responsable en barrios informales.Silvia Fernanda Aun, María Asunta de las Nieves Romero, Claudia Sakay y Akiko Okabe / Neuquén, Argentina y Tokio, Japón

(In)sustentabilidade da produção pública do habitar social no Brasil: uma análise crítica a partir da perspectiva de gênero.Daniela Abritta Cota / São João del Rei, Brazil

Calidad en la Vivienda Pública: una discusión teórica de los parámetros locales en las Normas Técnicas para Proyectos de Conjuntos Habitacionales.Diego Fiscarelli y Karina Cortina/ La Plata, Argentina

Gestión social holística para lograr la insersión de los sectores de bajos recursos económicos en la ciudad mediante un programa plataforma. Jorge Alberto Lombardi y Carlos Gustavo Cremaschi / La Plata, Argentina

La vivienda social. La evaluación de la funcionalidad y de su tipologíaLaura Cecilia Bozzo Clara / Montevideo, Uruguay

363

364

370

374

380

384

390

396

403

406

412

418

424

430

436

442

448

454

460

466

472

478

PROYECTOS Y TIPOLOGÍAS

Introducción de Daniela Arias Laurino y Roser Casanovas

Certos modos de habitar coletivamente: desejos de singularidade expressos na moradia e revelados por leituras de casos recentes. José Augusto Fernandes Aly y Natasha Stephano / São Paulo, Brazil

CAH. Constructive System for Affordable Housing.Jaime Sarmiento Ocampo, Catherine Preciado Santay David Cadavid Castañeda / Medellín, Colombia

La casa-patio en la vivienda colectiva moderna y contemporánea.David Resano Resano / Santa María del Pinar, Piura, Perú

La casa popolare in Brasile. Utopia avanguardia tradizione.Francesca Sarno / Roma, Italia

Abitare collettivo e rivoluzione digitale interazioni tra progetto, modellazione parametrica e manifattura additiva.Giulio Paparella y Maura Percoco / Roma, Italia

Un approccio parametrico al progetto dello spazio di margine. Il caso di Tour Bois le Prêtre.Grazia Pota / Napoli, Italia

Nuevas herramientas para la construcción del proyecto contemporáneo doméstico.María del Carmen Martínez-Quesada / Sevilla, España

Densificación residencial progresiva. Configuraciones urbanas y espacios colectivos de la viviendaNora Ponce, Pablo Ruiz y Florencia Carrica / La Plata, Argentina

Adaptabilidad y reconfiguración en la vivienda de propiedad variable. Pablo Alejandro José Ruiz / La Plata, Argentina

Habitar En-Colectivo. Ricardo De Francesco, Maite Niborski e Ignacio Gonzalez / Buenos Aires, Argentina

Patio and Pavilion. The vacuum-space between tradition and innovation. Flexibility and use.Simone Solinas / Sassari, Italia

Innovazione tipologica del “lotto gotico”. Un nuovo scenario urbano per l’aera di Rogoredo a Milano.Pasquale Mei y Gianluigi Freda / Milano y Napoli, Italia

Re-Building.Reinvenzioni tipologiche per residenzialità collettive.Gianluigi Mondaini / Ancona, Italia

10

11

L’abitare dialoga con la cultura e con i sistemi abitativi che si sono radicati in un determinato luogo lasciando un’eredità in continua trasformazione. Al contempo le politiche abitative devono rispondere alle differenze prodotte da un mercato incapace, per la sua voracità, di autoregolarsi, nonostante molti continuino a difendere il mito delle grazie del mercato. Queste politiche, che non si improvvisano e non si risolvono in pochi anni, hanno bisogno di decenni contraddistinti da volontà, progetti e investimenti continui.

Il capitalismo, fin dalle sue origini, si basa sullo sfruttamento del lavoro, incluso il doppio sfruttamento produttivo e riproduttivo delle donne, generando e rendendo visibili crisi e precarietà. Lo stesso è stato costruito sull’appropriazione esclusiva e ingiusta, di poche persone, dei benefici della terra e della vita, con la negazione del valore del diritto alla casa e alla città. Come spiega il nostro ultimo libro Política y arquitectura. Por un urbanismo de lo común y ecofeminista (Gustavo Gili, 2020), l’essenza del capitalismo, che investe il settore immobiliare, è la negazione del diritto al suolo e alla casa, strumento di dominio e controllo in mano a pochi proprietari, banche e fondi di investimento.

Ecco perché l’intervento pubblico è di vitale importanza per fornire riparo a tutti i settori che il mercato esclude. L’edilizia abitativa pubblica, che dovrebbe basarsi interamente sull’affitto, includendo nuove e diverse forme di possesso e che non dovrebbe perdere il proprio carattere nel corso degli anni, potrebbe formare il nucleo di base di ogni città. L’edilizia abitativa è l’ambito in cui pubblico e privato si incontrano: uno spazio privato, di intimità, che fa parte di un patrimonio pubblico, di un servizio, di un diritto umano al pari di salute, istruzione, sport e cultura. Un servizio che, se funziona bene come in Canada o in Finlandia, risponde attraverso il suo parco abitativo a cicli di vita, classi sociali e situazioni personali differenti.

Consapevoli di questi problemi da anni, abbiamo pubblicato nel 2004 il rapporto Libro Blanco sobre la vivienda en Cataluña, proprio quando abbiamo avviato il Máster Laboratorio de la vivienda sostenible del siglo XXI, che ha raggiunto 10 edizioni, alle quali hanno fatto seguito i Congressi Internazionali, il quarto dei quali si tiene ad Alghero.

Oggi, il problema dell’edilizia abitativa, le difficoltà nel generare un mercato accessibile, la questione chiave della riabilitazione, la volontà di rispondere a diversi cicli di vita, il consolidamento della parità di genere nello spazio domestico, etc., sono stati posti al centro dell’agenda urbana, sociale e comunale. Oggi molti si svegliano dal sogno neoliberale e contemplano sulla riva i resti devastanti e tragici di un naufragio, che fa presagire tempeste peggiori se non elaboriamo mezzi appropriati e se non promuoviamo politiche abitative tempestive e coraggiose.

Enfatizzando la proprietà privata, riducendo gli investimenti statali e obbligando gli abitanti a farsi carico delle spese relative al mantenimento del buono stato delle proprie abitazioni, non andiamo da nessuna parte. Oggi dobbiamo analizzare criticamente le varie tradizioni abitative e le politiche pubbliche, come fece Catherine Bauer per le politiche della socialdemocrazia in Europa, nel suo libro Modern Housing del 1934. Questo è, tra gli altri, uno degli obiettivi di questo IV Congresso.

Se ciò che più rappresenta un periodo, una cultura o una città è la sua architettura, ciò che manifesta maggiormente l’autentica natura dello spazio e gli scenari della vita quotidiana, è l’habitat, inteso come la casa e il suo ambiente circostante. Se l’architettura della casa è generalmente nota giacchè fotografata subito dopo il suo completamento, dobbiamo fare uno sforzo per sapere cosa sia successo durante la sua costruzione e successivamente come si sia evoluta con le persone che la abitano.

Insistiamo ancora una volta che ciò che caratterizza maggiormente le politiche abitative è il “lungo termine”: non possono essere attuate immediatamente, richiedono decenni di sviluppo e fanno parte della cultura dell’abitare di ogni luogo. Come ci ricorda John F.C. Turner, in inglese l’abitare è un verbo, un’azione: “housing”.

Josep Maria Montaner y Zaida Muxí

PRESENTAZIONE IV CONGRESSO INTERNAZIONALE

DELL’ABITARE COLLETTIVO SOSTENIBILE, ALGHERO 2020.

12

Liisa Horelli, doctora en psicología ambiental y profesora del Departamento Built Environ-ment, de la Aalto University, Finlandia. Ha realizado durante décadas investigación-ac-ción y ha publicado ensayos sobre la planificación y la evaluación participativa y desde el punto de vista del género. Actualmente está estudiando la auto-organización en las Smart Cities y sus consecuencias sobre la planificación urbana, el desarrollo de la comunidad y la co-gobernanza local.

47

Liisa Horelli | Aalto University

REVISITING GENDERED CO-HOUSING FROM THE NORDIC PERSPECTIVE

The last two decades have witnessed in a number of European countries a significant increase in collaborative housing, which is also reflected in several publications on the subject (Larsen, 2019; Falkenstjerne Beck, 2019; Palmer & Tummers, 2019; Tummers & MacGregor, 2019; Hagbert et al., 2020). An extensive litera-ture analysis of 195 peer reviewed publications over the period of 1990-201 has been carried out by Richard Lang, Claire Carriou and Darinka Czischke in 2018. It resulted in five main thematic areas, namely: socio-demographic (who lives in CH, age, gender, ethnicity etc.), collaboration (how does collaboration play out, in-cluding governance, individual-collective axis), motivation (why join, visions, values), effects (sustainability, commons), and contexts (spatial, social, policy fields). The authors also suggest that ́ Collab-orative Housing` should be regarded as an integrated multidisci-plinary research field of its own.

Collaborative housing can be considered an umbrella term for a variety of self-organised housing forms, such as cohousing, resi-dents´ co-operatives, self-help and self-build endeavours, experi-mental work-life and ecological housing communities. However, cohousing refers to a form of housing with common spaces, shared facilities and activities at the centre of which is the balancing of privacy - communality (Vestbro & Horelli, 2012).

Anna Falkenstjerne Beck (2019) has developed a conceptual multi-dimensional framework for cohousing, based on a litera-ture review and a study on 22 intergenerational cohousing proj-ects in Denmark. She proposes an extended spatial framework for how to understand this form of dwelling by suggesting four dimensions: 1. vision and value oriented dimension (how to live together), 2. organisational dimension (self-organising, finan-cial, legal & social), 3. relational dimension (social interaction, formal and informal practices), 4. physical dimension (all mate-riality on site). All the dimensions impact the experience of and sense of belonging to the cohousing. However, the cohouses, at least in Denmark, vary in terms of the dimensions due to different design types, whether architectural design, retrofitted/rebuilt or self-built eco-communities (Ibid).

According to Falkenstjerne Beck (2019), cohousing projects tend to emerge from the vision, which in turn diverge according to the residents and the context. Consequently, the ´soft social infrastructure` seeks to correspond to the hard infrastructure (the

material layout; Jarvis, 2015). Also the form of tenure seems to play an important role, weather rental, owner- occupied or cooperative (Larsen, 2019).

Although gender has played a central role in the development of cohousing (Vestbro & Horelli, 2012), the recent articles on cohous-ing, cited above, no longer focus on the meaning of gender, except for the publication by Lidewij Tummers and Sherilyn MacGregor (2019). These authors claim that there is wishful thinking about the promise of cohousing to be socially and ecologically sustainable, especially in terms of the achievements of gender equality. Tummers and MacGregor (2019) base their argument on extensive research from the perspective of Feminist political ecology (FPE1) and com-mons-thinking2 on co-housing in Europe and on a study to four co-housing projects in the Netherlands and the UK. Their research questions concern the commoning of reproduction (i.e. how is care work done and by whom?) and the caring democracy (i.e. how is care work valued and politicized in society?).

The aim of this article is to revisit the gendered history of cohous-ing, written mostly from the Nordic perspective by Vestbro & Horelli (2012) and to examine it in the light of the framework by Falkenst-jerne Beck (2019) and the questions raised by Tummers and Mac-Gregor (2019). I have also made check-up interviews with mem-bers of cohouses in Finland, Sweden and Denmark.

I argue that the historical, political, economic and socio-cultural context, as well as the vision of the particular community play a sig-nificant role in the formation and practicing of cohousing and that gender still is a meaningful feature in the Nordic cohousing. Next, I will make a resumé of the history of gendered cohousing, mostly in the Nordic countries (Table 1), after which I will discuss the lessons learnt with new questions.

1 “FPE is an interdisciplinary and multi-focal lens that applies insights from feminist geographical, ecofeminist, and gender, environment and development scholar-ship to critically analyse the human-environment nexus” (Tummers & MacGregor, 2019, 64). The focus is on the ways gendered power relations, combined with other axes of inequality, such as race, class and caste, shape the material and ideological contexts of environmental politics (Rocheleau et al.,1996).

2 Commoning is understood here as an ongoing process of people coming together to create the environments they want to inhabit when the state and the market fail to deliver (Tummers & MacGregor, 2019, 63).

48

Models

Dimensions

Utopianists 19th century Europe & USA

Material femi-nists, USA early 20th century

Central kitchen houses 1904-1922in Europe

Cohouses with employed staff 1935-1976 in Europe

New Everyday life, the self-work model in Nordic countries

Today and future

Driving forces/visions

Visions of a har-monious and just society, workers to own means of production.

Econ. indepen-dence of women through socialized domestic work (coop housekeep-ing).

To solve servant problem of the middle classes; “collectivizing the maid”.

Machine age transferred to housing. Well educated women wanted to com-bine family with a carrier.

Integrate work & private life through shared domestic work & management by men and women in housing.

Need to over-come isolation, demand for sustainable life-styles and energy solutions.

Organisation of cohousing/gender

Women to work in production but divisions of tasks according to gender

Production coops in the neighbour-hood liberating women, (but work not done by men).

No ideas of equality, house-wives remain, more rational production of food.

Socialisation of maids allowing women to par-ticipate in labour force. Low valuation of house work.

Domestic work vis-ible and sharable with men. Neigh-bourhood with local production, care, culture etc.

Reduction of house work and care still issues affecting equal-ity in the labour market.

Housing solu-tions, design

Production and reproduction integrated spatial-ly; influence on modernist ideas.

Neighbourhood with kitchenless houses, public kitchens and laundry, dinner clubs, etc.

Bourgeois apart-ments but without private kitchens, food lifts + cen-tral kitchen.

Apartments with small kitchens, central kitchen and other ser-vices.

Combining apartments with community house. Creation of the intermediary level as a supportive infrastructure

Ways & policies needed to upscale to the neighbour-hood level and to open up to all classes.

Domestic work, relations, impact on labour market

Collective organ-isation of meals partly for women’s participation in production.

The materialist did not demand equal distribution of domestic work with men.

Reduction of domestic work; house wives not expected to work in production.

Enhanced wom-en´s participation in the labour market. Domestic work not done by men.

Equal distribution of domestic work a prerequisite for work/life balance.

Equal distribution of domestic work but the educa-tional & labour markets remain segregated by gender.

Lessons for the future; obstacles, stepping stones

Inflexible solutions; some models totalita-ri-an; but positive influence on later cohousing ideas

Interesting solutions in neighbourhoods. Conflicts with patri¬archal soci-ety and corporate society.

Possible to cen-tralise food pro-duction, otherwise few lessons for the future.

Paid services became too expensive. Strong resistance from patriarchal society.

The most success-ful model today. The concrete utopia only in cohouse, not in the neighbour-hood, except a few examples.

Cohousing ex-pands, but radical housing policies & developers are needed to overcome the obstacles.

Table 1. Aspects of communal living models from the Renaissance utopians until today (Vestbro & Horelli, 2012, 331).

RESUMÉ OF GENDERED COHOUSING FROM THE NORDIC PERSPECTIVE

The history of cohousing started over two thousand years ago, when Pythagoras founded Homakoeion, a vegetarian commune, based on intellectualism, mysticism and the equality of the sex-es (Meltzer, 2010). Today’s development of alternative types of housing with communal spaces has been influenced by utopian visions, practical proposals and implemented projects far back in the past. The historical account of the past two hundred years by Vestbro and Horelli (2012) disclosed that the driving forces behind the selected communal living models have varied strongly according to the sociocultural and political context, as well as to the vision of the project (see Table 1, cf . Falkenstjerne Beck, 2019). As Table 1 resonates well both with the five thematic ar-eas (Lang et al., 2018) and the four dimensions of cohousing (Falkenstjerne Beck, 2019), I will shortly describe the drivers (vi-sions) and a few details of everyday practice, making more space for the self-work-model and that of the New Everyday life.

THE DRIVING FORCES (VISIONS) AND FEATURES OF DAILY PRACTICE

The Utopists in Table 1, include Thomas More (1478-1535), the statesman and humanist scholar executed by King Henry VIII.

In his famous book Utopia (a place nowhere, 1516), More de-scribed a society in perfect order, with equal education for men and women, and without private property. The island of Utopia had 54 towns, each with about 6000 households, divided into groups of 30, and served by a couple of slaves (foreigners or criminals). Women were to do the same work as men. The meals were consumed in big dining halls, served by slaves, while cook-ing and the ordering of tables were to be carried out by women taking turns (Vestbro, 1982). Three hundred years later, Charles Fourier and Jean Bap-tiste André Godin, were inspired by the utopian socialists and communal ownership, in France. Everybody would live in the “Phalanstères” of the ideal city. The city was to contain 1600-1800 inhabitants, engaged in both agriculture and small-scale industrial production. The Phalanstère was to have a commu-nal dining hall, schools, kindergartens, libraries, lecture halls, a theatre, and other collective facilities for everybody. Housework was to be rationalized through machines and communal kitch-ens, and women would work in production as well. The only European example of a realised project, was the Familistère of Guise, built by Jean Godin, an industrialist and member of the French senate. It was a building complex (factory and dwell-ings), where everyone would live in a huge family. It is today part of the national building heritage.

49

The disciples of European utopians had to migrate to the USA, where the design solutions of 280 communities were based on the wish to establish self-sufficient settlements that incorporated both industry and agriculture (Hayden, 1977). The vision of a more rational society became prominent in many utopian settle-ments. Also the principles of equality between men and women were important driving forces behind most communities (Ibid).

The material feminists (Table 1) emerged as a movement in 1868, when the first demands for housewives to be paid were expressed. It ended in 1931, when the Hoover Commis-sion Report on Home Building and Home Ownership led to the building of 50 million single-family houses mostly in the suburbs (Hayden, 1981). The material feminists demanded “a complete transformation of the spatial design and material culture of American homes, neighbourhoods and cities” (Ibid, 1981,3). The feminists attacked both the physical separation of household space from public space and the economic sep-aration of the domestic economy from the political economy. The built environment should reflect more egalitarian systems of production and consumption. The entire physical environment of cities should be redesigned to reflect equality for women (Hayden, 1981, 8). The new interventions included house-wives’ cooperatives, new building types (kitchen-less houses; apartment hotels), day care centres, public kitchens, commu-nity dining clubs and food service delivery. “The home should be extended to the world” (Ibid). The socialisation of domestic work was at the centre of their movement. However, domestic work, even if paid, was never to be shared with men, as women should have control of the reproduction of society.

The Central kitchen and collective housing in Europe were influ-enced by the material feminists, as the growing middle class in some European countries needed to find solutions to the prob-lem of hiring domestic servants at an affordable price in the beginning of the 20th century. One idea was to “collectivise the maid”, by producing urban residential complexes where many households could share meal production, such as in Copen-hagen, Stockholm, London, Berlin, Zürich, Vienna and Helsin-ki. The purpose was not to facilitate women to work outside the home, but to save costs by employing fewer servants. For example, in the one-kitchen housing project, Hemgården Cen-tralkök, built in 1905-1907 in Stockholm, normal bourgeois apartments were deprived of the kitchen, the maid’s room and some storage space, and a central kitchen with a bakery were placed in the basement. Three meals a day could be ordered, which were sent to the flats through food lifts on each side of the staircases. After the meal, china and cutlery were sent back to the basement for cleaning. The servant staff also had the task of doing the laundry, room cleaning, shoe polish, sending messages etc (Vestbro, 1982).

Cohouses or collective houses with employed staff were intro-duced in the Nordic and some European countries as a logical expression of modernisation. For architect Sven Markelius and social reformer Alva Myrdal, collective housing was a tool to enable women to combine housework and paid employment in Sweden, between 1935 - 1976. The first collective housing units, such as the Hässelby Family Hotel, were not based on cooperation but on the division of labour. The tenants were to be served by employed staff even for laundry and room clean-ing. The tenants themselves were not supposed to do any house work (Vestbro, 1982). The idea was not that men should have equal responsibilities with women for children and house work (as was the case later), but there was a desire to do away with the bourgeois housewife system so that women could work out-side their homes. However, the paid services became too ex-pensive in the long run.

The self-work model was created in the 1970s by a group of Swedish women (Bo i Gemenskap = Live in community), who rejected the idea of separating productive and reproductive work. Nor did they agree with the Modernists that housework should be minimized. Instead, they maintained that housework was part of the women’s culture and it should be regarded as a valuable contribution to society. Cooking and child rearing together with others (men) is enjoyable, and it also saves time (Blomberg & Kärnekull, 2019).

The model was based on the idea that the appropriate size for the new type of cohousing should be between 15 and 50 house-holds. If each household transfers ten per cent of the normal apartment space, the collective will get a substantial amount of communal facilities without increasing costs. As the model was to be an asset to other social groups as well, it was presented to the municipal housing companies, who in fact at the end of the 1970s implemented most of the new experiments in Sweden.

The New Everyday Life-approach emerged from the Nordic women’s network on ’Housing and building on women’s con-ditions‘, which gathered to its first conference in 1979. The conference came up with the idea of a better everyday life in which a supportive infrastructure would play a central role. This evolved into a decade long transdisciplinary project and ap-proach, The New Everyday Life (Research group for the New Everyday Life, 1991). It provided 1. a critique of the difficult conditions to balance work and private life, 2. a vision of a just society, and 3. a model of action. The central motives for action were the needs of children and women, as well as the social reproduction of people and nature.

The vision of The New Everyday Life-approach was a concrete utopia of a post-industrial, mosaic-like society consisting of vary-ing self-governing units that are responsible for the use of local resources. Important elements were work (paid and unpaid), care and housing, the separation of which was to be replaced by their integration in the living environment. The theoretical framework comprised two central concepts: ev-eryday life as a process and the Intermediary level as a new im-portant structure to be developed. According to Birte Beck-Joer-gensen (1988), the root of everyday life lies in the reproductive actions that form the psychosocial forces with which people trans-form societal and cultural conditions into phenomenal experienc-es, enhanced or constrained by the built environment. Structural change can take place in the inter-subjective arenas – free living spaces – that are characterized by deliberations and digressions from the generally accepted ways of orientation. The Intermediary level, as a mediating structure between individ-ual households, and the public and private sectors, was devel-oped as a concept that referred to the structural and functional basis for the re-organisation and integration of housing, work, and care in the neighbourhoods. As a new structure for com-muning in the neighbourhoods the Intermediary level was also to comprise environmentally friendly housing, energy systems, ser-vices, employment, and other activities, which may support the residents irrespective of age and gender (Horelli & Vepsä, 1994). The action model (see Figure 1) comprised the creation of the func-tional basis of the Intermediary level by bringing to the neighbour-hood some of the daily tasks normally located in different sectors and places. The care of domestic chores and children could be transferred from private homes to communal spaces, as in the ex-amples of cohousing. Environmental planning and management, as well as care of older people, would be delivered in the neigh-bourhood and not in centralised institutions of the public sector.

50

Even the private sector could occasionally find it interesting to create production to serve the local community. These transactions were to result in new activities, called the local housework, local care, local production, and local planning and management (The Research group for the New Everyday life, 1991).

Geographically the Intermediary level was to be a locally limited territorial whole, varying in size from a group of dwellings or a block to a neighbourhood, village or part of a town. As a physical phenomenon, it was to comprise shared arenas and spaces of communication. In fact, its architecture would support different modes of housing and the identity of the local culture. It could be regarded as a mixture of New Urbanism and the Just City. The current applications of The New Everyday Life-approach can be structured according to the level of aspired communality and the degree of informal/formal economy. This has resulted in a range of examples, such as a well-functioning housing area with shared spaces (for example the neighbourhood of Tinggården outside Copenhagen); cohousing communities or collective houses similar to the ones that the self-work group has proposed; communes of different sizes; service house communities with both cohousing and an exchange of unpaid and paid services; and lastly communities in which members work in the same residence in which they live, such as Svaneholm in Denmark, kibbutzim in Israel and the eco-village Findhorn in Scotland (see Fromm, 1991; Meltzer, 2010; McCamant & Durrett, 2011). The local care in the Intermediary level has made it possible to conceptualize services in terms of social and material support networks, which later were conceptualized as the ‘supportive in-frastructure of everyday life’ (Horelli & Vepsä, 1994; Gilroy & Booth, 1999; Horelli, 2017).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Before discussing the revisit to the gendered history of cohous-ing, it has to be disclosed that cohousing still constitutes only a tiny fraction of the total housing stock even in those countries where cohousing is fairly frequent. Germany has some 2000-3000 projects across the country. Denmark, which is considered to be the leader in this field, has approximately 500-700 units (McCamant & Durrett, 2011; Jacobsen & Larsen, 20183). The

3 The figures are so far approximations, but the Danish Bofaelleskab association is currently trying to find out the number of units, households, residents etc.

share in Sweden is even smaller, and really tiny in Finland. The residents are mostly white, well-educated, middle-class people (Lang et al., 2019). According to the study by Jacobsen and Lars-en (2018), the balance between women and men is almost 60 to 40 per cent in Danish cohousing. Vestbro & Horelli (2912) es-timated the share of women in Swedish cohouses to range from 55 to 70 per cent, which also is the case in Finland. The strong dominance of women may depend on the shared responsibilities for the domestics and children, leading to a more positive atti-tude among women to communal living and to commoning the Intermediary level in comparison to men.

However, there are multiple obstacles to cohousing. Some of them are financial (only few rental or cooperative housing on offer), temporal (the long duration of implementation) and cognitive (cohousing demands certain know how). Others are socio-cultural (cohousing requires certain social skills and shar-ing of values), and political (housing policy seldom enhances cohousing through financing and legislation)(Droste, 2015; Blomberg & Kärnekull, 2019).

The revisit to gendered cohousing (Table 1) indicated that co-housing is a multi-dimensional concept and endeavour in which the driver or vision plays a central role for the implementation and maintenance of the community. The visions have comprised the reduction of housework in all models, although the equal share of responsibilities for work at home has appeared only in the self-work model and in the New Everyday Life-approach, de-pending on the level of desired interaction. Thus, the aims of gender equality through community have been significant in all models in Table 1, except for the Central kitchen houses.

The claim that the women’s movement made in the 1970s about the importance of equality at home for entering the labour mar-ket, still holds true in the Nordic cohouses, according to my in-terviews (cf. the question on caring democracy by Tummers and MacGregor, 2019). The statistics show that in those countries in which the sharing of domestic work is high or fairly high, as in the Nordic countries, also the employment rate of women is high, even with small children, over 70%. This differs from the countries in which men do very little domestic work, such as Southern Eu-ropean ones, and where the employment of women is quite low, around 50% (Eurostat, 2003; 2019). Thus, the ´gender con-tract` that provides limits for what genders are allowed or expect-ed to do, vary among different countries impacting household roles. Maybe the negative results concerning the commoning of reproduction and caring democracy in the study carried out in the Netherlands and England by Tummers and MacGregor (2019) are at least partly caused by the context and the lack of visions based on care (see also Chatterton, 2016).

However, Falkenstjerne Beck (2019) found out that the 1970s vision in Danish cohousing to transform the patriarchal family ideal to a non-hierarchical one has changed, according to societal trends. As there is more equality between genders today (care work is shared and women and men co-manage the community), the nuclear fami-ly needs support even within the cohouse in order to protect children.

Cohousing is, according to Falkenstjerna Beck (2019) materi-alised visions within complex housing systems. Its functioning takes place through the maintenance of everyday formal and informal practices which contribute to the communal culture (see also Beck-Joergensen, 1988). The triple role of shared space – an arena of action, producer of meanings and a medium inte-gration or disintegration – is a necessary condition for nurturing community (Horelli, 2013).

The dwelling process has an indirect role in the reproduction of

Fig. 1 The action model for building an Intermediary level to be commoned, depending on the local, national and global context.

51

gender4 depending on the amount of time women and men or boys and girls devote to the domestic chores, in the kitchen, in the garage or in shared facilities, such as the Community House. It is the temporal and spatial patterns of activities that reproduce the images of gender which, in turn, have an impact on the identity of the person. However, the process is affected by the cultural patterns and political decisions that open new opportunities or constrain the choices of individual residents or households within the cohouse (Horelli, 1995; Jarvis, 2011). The upscaling and extending of care to the neighbourhood and non-humans alike were originally at the core of the New Every-day Life-approach. During the years, sustainability has become a prime issue, especially in Denmark, with several examples of projects focusing on food supply, self-sufficiency, and varying energy solutions, supported by comprehensive or permaculture design principles. All models in Table 1 have rich communal spaces, but only the material feminists, at the turn of the 19th century USA, and the models appearing after 1970 have sought to promote community and cooperation among the neighbours. Sadly, there are not many examples of opening up the cohouse to the neighbourhood (Vestbro & Horelli, 2012; Tummers, 2017).

On the other hand, it is obvious that cohousing has brought support to people living in isolation or who wish to lead a more sustainable life. It has also been able to shake to some extent the traditional patriarchal division of domestic work in the Nordic countries. However, cohouses could open up even more to soci-ety by liaising with the neighbourhood at large, like some of the collective houses have done in Stockholm. Recently, a network of 19 organisations in Sweden have joined forces in a project (divcity.se) to enhance Building communities (baugemeinschaft in German). Its website comprises tools, services, models of im-plementation and strategies to change housing policy in order to enable groups realise cohousing. Also in England, commu-nity-led housing (CLH5) - a grassroots-based housing niche - is gaining strength by joining forces with intermediaries, such as umbrella housing organisations and networks as well as social entrepreneurs, who can establish vertical linkages to decision makers (Lang et al., 2019). In addition, the increasing number of new professionals within cohousing (Korpela, 2012; Czischke, 2018; Helamaa, 2018; Palmer & Tummers, 2019) means that there are developers who, if trained, might in the future provide much needed socio-technical expertise even through the digital-isation of development processes with building (BIMs) and city information models.

Last but not least, the few examples of gender planning in Europe (Wankiewicz, 2015; Horelli, 2017; Zibell et al., 2019) give hope that the supportive infrastructure of everyday life can provide an alternative to the current neo-liberal ways of developing environments. Consequent-ly, the question raised by Dolores Hayden in 1991 still remains valid, namely how to implement the designs of the non-sexist City.

REFERENCES

• Beck-Joergensen, B. (1988): Hvorför gör de ikke noget? In C. Bloch, L. Höjgaard, B. Bech-Joergensen & B. Lindeskov Nautrap (Eds.), Hverdagsliv, kultur, og subjektivitet. Copen-hagen: Akademisk Förlag.

• Blomberg, I. & Kärnekull, K. (2019) Do-It-Yourself: The

4 Currently, gender is considered a dynamic and relational concept that refers to indivi-dual, inter-relational and institutional phenomena. “Doing gender+ in context” is so-mething that has to be recognized or deconstructed in all gender-aware activities that intersect with class, age, ethnicity and sexual orientation (Horelli, 2017).

5 Community-led housing refers to housing that is shaped and controlled by a group that represents the residents and/or the wider community that will be served by the housing (https://www.communityledhomes.org.uk/what-community-led-housing).

Stormy Road to Cohousing in Sweden. Built Environment, 45(3), 280-295.

• Chatterton, P. (2016) Building Transitions to Post-capitalist Urban Commons. Transactions of Institute of British Geogra-phers, 41,403–415. https://doi. org/10.1111/tran.12139.

• Czischke, D. (2018) Collaborative Housing and Housing Providers: Towards an Analytical Framework of Multi-Stake-holder Collaboration in Housing Co-Production. Interna-tional Journal of Housing Policy, 18 (1), 55–81. DOI.10.1080/19491247.2017.1331593.

• Droste, C. (2015) German Co-Housing: An Opportunity for Municipalities to Foster Socially Inclusive Urban Develop-ment? Urban Research & Practice, 8 (1),79–92. DOI:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011428.

• Eurostat (2003) European Labour Force Survey. Ac-cessed 1.1.2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/doc-uments/3433488/5568556/KS-NK-05-004-EN.PD-F/21a869f5-7c67-400e-b392-cf072ebcb3e8

• Eurostat (2019) Participation rate in household and family care, main activity, %, by gender (2008-2015).

• Falkenstjerne Beck, A. (2019) What is Co-Housing? Devel-oping a Conceptual Framework from the Studies of Danish Intergenerational Co-Housing. Housing, Theory and Soci-ety, DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2019.1633398

• Fromm, D. (1991) Collaborative Communities. Cohous-ing, Central Living and Other New Forms of Housing with Shared Facilities. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

• Gilroy, R. & Booth, C. (1999) Building Infrastructure for Ev-eryday Lives. European Planning Studies, 7(3), 307-324.

• Hagbert, P., Larsen, H.G., Thörn, H. & Wasshede, C. (2020) Contemporary co-housing in Europe. Towards sustainable cities? Oxon: Routledge.

• Hayden, D. (1977): Seven American Utopias. The Architec-ture of Communitarian Socialism 1790-1975. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

• Hayden, D. (1981) The Grand Domestic Revolution. A His-tory of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighbor-hoods and Cities. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

• Hayden, D. (1991/2005). What would a Nonsexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human work. In S.S. Fainstein & L.J. Servon (Eds.), Gender and Plan-ning (pp. 47-64). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

• Helamaa, A. (2019) From Marginal to mainstream? Analys-ing Translations between the Collaborative Housing Niche and the Established Housing Sector in Finland. Built Environ-ment, 45(3), 364-381.

• Horelli, L. (1995).Self-Planned Housing and the reproduc-tion of gender and identity. In L.Ottes, E.Poventud, M. van Schendelen & G. Segond von Banchet (Eds.), Gender and the Built Environment, (pp. 22-28). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

• Horelli, L. (2013) The role of shared space for the building and maintenance of community from the gender perspective - a longitudinal case study in a neighbourhood of Hel-sinki. Social Sciences Directory, 2(5), 47-63.

• Horelli, L. (2017) Engendering urban planning in different contexts – successes, constraints and consequences, Euro-pean Planning Studies, 25(10), 1779-1796. DOI:10.1080/09654313.2017.1339781

• Horelli, L. & Vepsä, K. (1994) In Search of Supportive Struc-tures for Everyday Life. In I. Altman & A. Churchman (Eds.),

• Women and the Environment. Human Behavior and Envi-ronment, Vol. 13, (pp. 201-226). New York: Plenum.

• Jakobsen, P. & Larsen, H.G. (2018). An Alternative for Whom? The Evolution and Socio-Economic of Danish Cohousing. Urban Research & Practice. DOI:10.1080/ 17535069.2018.1465582.

• Jarvis, H. (2011) Saving space, sharing time: integrated

52

infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environment and Planning A, 43(3), 560–577.

• Jarvis, H. (2015) Towards a Deeper Understanding of the Social Architecture of Co-Housing: Evidence from the UK, USA and Australia. Urban Research and Practice, 8(1), 93–105. DOI:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011429.

• Korpela, S. (2012) Casa Malta: A Case Study of Contem-porary Co-Housing Project in Helsinki. CoHousing in the Making. Built Environment, 38 (3), 309–314.

• Lang, R., Carriou, C. & Czischke, D.(2018) Collaborative Housing Research (1990-2017): A Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis of the Field. Housing, Theory and Society, 1–30. DOI:10.1080/14036096.2018.1536077.

• Lang, R., Chatterton, P. & Mullins, D. (2019) Grass-roots innovations in community-led housing in England: the role and evolution of intermediaries. Internation-al Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, DOI: 10.1080/19463138.2019.1663525

• Larsen, H. G. (2019) Three Phases of Danish Cohousing: Tenure and the Development of an Alternative Housing Form. Housing Studies, 1–23. DOI:10.1080/02673037.2019.1569599.

• McCamant, K. & Durrett, C. (2011) Creating Cohousing. Building Sustainable Communities. Canada: New Society Publishers.

• Meltzer, G. (2010) Cohousing and Ecovillages: A Person-al Take on Their Similarities and Differences. In D. U. Vest-bro (Ed.), Living Together – Cohousing Ideas and Realities Around the World. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.

• Palmer, J. & Tummers, L. (2019) Collaborative Housing:

Resident and Professional Roles. Built Environment, 45, (3), 277-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.45.3.277

• The Research Group for the New Everyday Life (1991) The New Everyday Life – Ways and means. Copenhagen: Nord.

• Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B. & Wangari,E. (Eds.)(1996).Feminist Political Ecology. New York: Routledge.

• Tummers, L. (2017) Learning from the Co-Housing Initia-tives between Passivhaus Engineers and Active Inhabitants. (PhD dissertation). Rotterdam: Delft University of Technology.

• Tummers, L. & MacGregor, S. (2019) Beyond wishful think-ing: a FPE perspective on commoning, care and the prom-ise of co-housing. International Journal of the Commons, 13(1), 62-83). DOI: 10.18352/ijc.918

• Vestbro, D. U. (1982) Kollektivhus från enkökshus till boge-menskap, Stockholm: Swedish Building Research Council T28.

• Vestbro, D. U. (Ed.)(2010) Living Together – Cohousing Ideas and Realities around the World. Stockhom: Royal In-stitute of Technology.

• Vestbro, D. U. & Horell, L. (2012) Design for Gender Eguali-ty: The History of Co-Housing Ideas and Realities. Built Envi-ronment, 38 (3), 309–314. DOI:10.2148/benv.38.3.315.

• Wankiewicz, H. (2015) The Potential of Cohousing for Rural Austria. Urban Research & Practice, 8 (1), 46–63. DOI:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011426.

• Zibell, B., Damyanovic, D. & Sturm, U. (Eds.)(2019) Gendered Approaches to Spatial Development in Europe – Perspectives, Similarities, Differences (pp.157-180). London: Routledge.

53