Democracy and non-profit housing. The tensions of residents’ involvement in the Danish non-profit sector

Mechanisms of Solidarity in Collaborative Housing – The Case of Co-operative Housing in Denmark 1980–2017

“…A comparative glance at the rented sector should further clarify the answer to this question. Even though Danish social rented housing has been characterized by marketization in recent years (Hansen and Langergaard 2017), it is striking that the Fogh-Rasmussen government's privatization agenda in the years after 2001 largely failed in the non-profit sector. Significantly, a collective actornamely the organization of independent housing companies (BL, Boligselskabernes Landsforening)successfully contributed to defeating a Danish version of right-to-buy.…”

Interpreting ‘the social’: Exploring processes of social sustainability in Danish nonprofit housing

“…Approximately, 20% of the Danish housing mass is constituted by nonprofit housing, but it is unevenly distributed across different municipalities with a tendency to a larger concentration around big cities (Landsbyggefonden, 2015). The term nonprofit housing seems more accurate in a Danish context rather than social housing, because only part of the sector is used as social housing (Hansen and Langergaard, 2017). Still, the sector does have an important societal role as the municipalities have disposal over approximately 20% of the social housing apartments, which can be used as social housing for citizens with social needs, or elderly citizens or people with disabilities.…”

“…The aim was to enhance responsibility and engagement toward physical maintenance, communal estate affairs, and social integration (Jensen, 1998). In this sense, the change in legislation with it widening of the scope of active participation of the residents and renewed emphasis on self-organization and the ideal of participatory democracy and participation both inside and outside of the democratic organs and activities of the sector (Hansen and Langergaard, 2017).…”

“…The specific department has a strong and active board of residents, making it a critical case “having strategic importance in relation to the general problem” (Flyvbjerg, 2006: 229). Moreover, the Danish nonprofit housing sector can in itself be considered a critical case due to the conditions for strong participatory processes (Hansen and Langergaard, 2017). With the strong and active resident board, the case also services to illustrate the potentials and challenges of the nonprofit housing sector as a platform developing socially sustainable cities and neighborhoods, because of the way it is organized.…”

Three phases of Danish cohousing: tenure and the development of an alternative housing form

“…First, although still in many ways restricted by legislation, the sector has in recent years begun to experiment with housing types that give residents a greater say in the design and running of their housing, for example 'AlmenBoligþ' (Jensen & Stensgaard, 2016). Second, this could feed into a participatory democracy with significant decision-making for public housing residents, which, albeit with tensions and problems, has been introduced since the 1970s (Hansen & Langergaard, 2017). At the time when state support for new-build housing cooperatives was introduced, Andersen & Lyager (1984) saw this tenure form as an advantages for the spread of cohousing, and yet they conclude that the greatest potentials for cohousing is in the public housing sector.…”