Size matters. How does the number of dwellings affect housing co-production?

Ledent, Gérald

doi:10.1007/s10901-021-09863-8

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to [3], this mainly applies to small-medium CH, where the participation levels of end-users in the design process are higher. This is line with [34], who state that the design of small to medium-sized projects is highly based the residents' needs, whereas in larger scale CH the design is less specific, yet it reflects 'qualities common to all'. Residents' involvement in the design, efficient construction, spatial adaptability, 'right-sized' units and efficient common spaces are some design examples pointed out by [18] that keep costs down in CH.…”

Section: Distinguishing the Design Criteria Behind Affordable-mainstr...supporting

confidence: 83%

“…In recent decades, the re-emergence of CH has been challenging the more conventional modus operandi of housing provision through a more inclusive, resident-led and collaborative model, where end-users are actively involved. This represents a paradigm shift in housing provision and management [14], as the role of residents is redefined, who no longer are mere 'consumers', as well as the role of the involved professionals, namely architects or municipalities [14,34]. Housing becomes a collaborative process and product, combining the professionals' expertise with a high level of resident participation.…”

Section: Distinguishing the Design Criteria Behind Affordable-mainstr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notwithstanding, Bo i Gemenskap ('Live in community') or BIG, a group of Swedish women who focused on developing a cohousing model in Sweden, argued that reducing 10% of the surface area in a conventional apartment would allow inclusion of a significant area for common spaces without increasing building costs [39]. Furthermore, the quantitative analysis of CH in Europe conducted by [34] shows that the common areas in the CH projects with 30-50 units correspond to an average of 10% of the total built area.…”

Section: Distinguishing the Design Criteria Behind Affordable-mainstr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sharing Is Saving? Building Costs Simulation of Collaborative and Mainstream Housing Designs

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building costs play a significant role in determining the affordability of a housing project, and these depend to a large extent on design choices. This paper is based on the premise that collaborative design processes, or co-design, used in collaborative housing (CH) in Europe reduce building costs and consequently increase the affordability of these housing projects. However, research remains scarce on the extent to which CH is an affordable solution from a design perspective compared to affordable mainstream housing (MH), in which no co-design is used. Therefore, this paper aims to fill this knowledge gap by assessing the impact of design choices on building costs in CH and MH. To this end, we developed a simulation model to compare the building costs of CH with MH based on their design choices. Findings indicate that CH represents a more affordable and space-efficient solution when compared to MH, if we look at the building costs per unit. This is because CH provides less expensive units while it includes larger common spaces and extra quality. These results help to refute existing claims about the unaffordability of CH design solutions.

show abstract

Section: Distinguishing the Design Criteria Behind Affordable-mainstr...supporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Distinguishing the Design Criteria Behind Affordable-mainstr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Distinguishing the Design Criteria Behind Affordable-mainstr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sharing Is Saving? Building Costs Simulation of Collaborative and Mainstream Housing Designs

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent decades, the re-emergence of CH has been challenging the more conventional modus operandi of housing provision through a more inclusive, resident-led and collaborative model, where end-users are actively involved. This represents a paradigm shift in housing provision and management , as the role of residents is redefined, who no longer are mere 'consumers', as well as the role of the involved professionals, namely architects or municipalities Ledent, 2022). Housing becomes a collaborative process and product, combining the professionals' expertise with a high level of resident participation.…”

Section: Distinguishing the Design Criteria Behind Affordable-mainstr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notwithstanding, Bo i Gemenskap ('Live in community') or BIG, a group of Swedish women who focused on developing a cohousing model in Sweden, argued that reducing 10% of the surface area in a conventional apartment would allow inclusion of a significant area for common spaces without increasing building costs (Vestbro & Horelli, 2012). Furthermore, the quantitative analysis of CH in Europe conducted by Ledent (2022) shows that the common areas in the CH projects with 30-50 units correspond to an average of 10% of the total built area.…”

Section: Tocmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a new Existenzminimum

Brysch

2024

Architecture and the Built Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis brings forward the design dimension, and, more specifically, co-design, to the study of housing affordability. Co-design occurs when end-users and professionals work together towards a common goal. It is a process often applied in collaborative housing, an umbrella concept encompassing different housing forms based on collective self-organisation and collaboration, where residents choose to share certain spaces. The aim of this research is to assess if and how co-design processes applied in collaborative housing may reduce building costs, thereby making these housing projects not only affordable, but even more affordable than mainstream housing. It does so by combining a case study approach with a building costs simulation. Findings indicate that co-design decisions based on a collective self-redefinition of Existenzminimum (minimum dwelling) affect the housing layout and contribute to reduce building costs. By conceptualising housing design through the lenses of affordability, this thesis highlights the understated role of architectural design and building costs as key components in the study and provision of affordable housing solutions; and enriches the existing body of knowledge on affordable collaborative housing. Moreover, it draws attention to the way some outdated building regulations and standards hamper design innovation in housing. This research ends up with a set of general principles for the co-design of affordable collaborative housing. These design principles may assist professionals supporting co-design and, more importantly, people who want to design, build and live in a collaborative manner.

show abstract

L’expérience de la vie collective par les habitants d’un « béguinage » pour personnes âgées. Motivations plurielles, projections ambivalentes et relations à géométrie variable

Bertillot¹,

Vanneste²

2023

Vie Sociale

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Les champs du vieillissement et du handicap sont actuellement marqués par le développement de logements qui se veulent plus adaptés, plus ouverts, plus soutenants. Si la présence d’une vie partagée entre habitants est un élément central des projets qui bénéficient de financements publics, un débat émerge aujourd’hui sur les implicites de cette catégorisation de « l’habitat inclusif ». Dans quelle mesure le souhait de partager son habitat constitue-t-il une motivation ? Comment et avec quelles conséquences une vie collective est-elle susceptible d’émerger ? À partir d’une étude de cas centrée sur l’expérience vécue par les habitants d’un « béguinage » implanté dans une commune rurale, cet article décrit d’abord une pluralité de motivations à quitter son ancien logement. Il analyse ensuite l’ambivalence des projections en matière de vie collective. Enfin, il rend compte de l’émergence de relations de voisinage à géométrie variable. Au final, permettre aux personnes, quel que soit leur âge ou leur handicap, d’avoir plus de choix en matière d’habitat implique qu’elles soient libres d’habiter ou non avec d’autres personnes et le cas échéant de décider de ce qu’elles partagent.

show abstract

Size matters. How does the number of dwellings affect housing co-production?

Cited by 4 publications

References 21 publications

Sharing Is Saving? Building Costs Simulation of Collaborative and Mainstream Housing Designs

Sharing Is Saving? Building Costs Simulation of Collaborative and Mainstream Housing Designs

Towards a new Existenzminimum

L’expérience de la vie collective par les habitants d’un « béguinage » pour personnes âgées. Motivations plurielles, projections ambivalentes et relations à géométrie variable

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Size matters. How does the number of dwellings affect housing co-production?

Cited by 4 publications

References 21 publications

Sharing Is Saving? Building Costs Simulation of Collaborative and Mainstream Housing Designs

Sharing Is Saving? Building Costs Simulation of Collaborative and Mainstream Housing Designs

Towards a new Existenzminimum

L’expérience de la vie collective par les habitants d’un « béguinage » pour personnes âgées. Motivations plurielles, projections ambivalentes et relations à géométrie variable

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

L’expérience de la vie collective par les habitants d’un « béguinage » pour personnes âgées. Motivations plurielles, projections ambivalentes et relations à géométrie variable