The mechanics of housing collectivism: how forms and functions affect affordability

Abstract

In countries worldwide, limited access to affordable housing is fuelling interest in collectivist solutions. Different organizational models are being developed to enable groups of people to own and control housing collectively. The benefits of such models have been widely promoted, not least in terms of delivering enhanced housing affordability for residents. However, evidence to support such claims is scarce and it remains unclear whether affordability is the product of collective forms and functions, or some other factor(s). To address this gap in knowledge, the paper presents findings from three case studies of English and Canadian housing collectives. Applying realist theories of causation, the processes affecting housing affordability are explained, conceptualizing two causal mechanisms which depict how organizational form, internal rules and regulatory activity, along with the unique role of the resident-owner, influence the setting of rents and prices. Further research is required to understand the prevalence of these mechanisms and their general application.

Collective self-build for senior friendly communities. Studying the effects on social cohesion, social satisfaction and loneliness

“…In Europe, self-managed collective housing is (re)gaining importance in a search for affordable housing (e.g. Archer, 2020;Czischke et al, 2020;Czischke & van Bortel, 2018;Lang et al, 2020;Lang & Stoeger 2018) as well as to form a community (Fromm 2012;Hamiduddin, & Gallent, 2016;Tummers, 2016Tummers, , 2017.…”

Long-term developments in housing policy and research

“…Solutions may very well need to go beyond social policy, given the investment character of housing, and links with global financial markets and monetary policies. Wider-reaching proposals include reducing favourable taxation of homeownership and debt finance (Fatica & Prammer, 2018;OECD, 2021); reforming financial markets and banking systems by reducing stimuli for financial capitalism (Ryan-Collins, 2019;Wijburg, 2020); exploring alternative (collaborative) housing tenures (Archer, 2020;Wijburg, 2020); reforming land policy and taxation to curb speculative tendencies (Ryan-Collins, 2019;OECD, 2021); reinvigorating public investments in affordable/social housing, simultaneously offering opportunities to promote environmental sustainability (OECD, 2021).…”

Housing affordability, market interventions, and policy platforms in the 2022 Ontario provincial election

“…With growing forms of housing insecurity stretching from large urban areas to even small rural communities, policy approaches have primarily focused on providing more housing options for individuals and families. While there have been several studies across the field highlighting the possibilities of alternative housing models (e.g., Archer, 2022;Meehan, 2014;Thaden et al, 2013), the dominant policy approach has been focused on increasing the market-based supply of residential housing (Been et al, 2019;Wetzstein, 2021). Wetzstein (2021) (2) Wrapped up in this logic is that the lack of affordable housing is a result of extraneous government zoning and construction regulations.…”

“…With growing forms of housing insecurity stretching from large urban areas to even small rural communities, policy approaches have primarily focused on providing more housing options for individuals and families. While there have been several studies across the field highlighting the possibilities of alternative housing models (e.g., Archer, 2022; Meehan, 2014; Thaden et al., 2013), the dominant policy approach has been focused on increasing the market‐based supply of residential housing (Been et al., 2019; Wetzstein, 2021). Wetzstein (2021) describes this as the market‐based housing supply (MBHS) framework where:

Affordable housing results from unlocking land supply at the right location and removing constraints on urban fringe development, creating effective markets around land development, housing construction, and infrastructure provision, reducing planning controls and easing application processes for private development, and curtailing powers of local governments and the planning profession.(2)

…”