Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: why and how?

Tummers, Lidewij

doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011427

Cited by 65 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Durrett, 2009;Sangregorio, 2000;Sandstedt, 2010), or focuses on the practical or economic challenges of development (see, for example, Scott-Hunt, 2007;Scanlon and Fernández Arrigoitia, 2015;Tummers, 2015b). There are a few studies that describe the importance of community and social connection, as well as the greater quality of life and well-being that senior co-housing groups can offer (see, for example, Andresen and Runge, 2002;Choi and Paulsson, 2011;Kang et al, 2012).…”

Section: Jim Hudsonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Build Homes

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PrefaceSelf-Build Homes sets out to consider how understanding the social dimensions of self-build might advance theory, practice and research. A relatively understudied phenomenon, the few key academic texts on self-build -Duncan and Rowe's 'Self-provided housing ' (1993), Hardy and Ward's Arcadia for All (1984), and Barlow et al. 's Homes to DIY For (2001) -are still highly relevant, but do not reflect recent changes in housing policy and practice, housing provision, and concern over growing inequality of access to the housing market. This volume emerged out of the workshop 'Putting the social into alternative housing' convened as part of Michaela Benson's ESRC-runded research Self-building, the production and consumption of new homes from the perspective of households (ES/ K001078/ 1). The workshop foregrounded the social dimensions of the alternative housing practices (in their broadest sense) that are often the subject of scholarly research but seem to take a backseat within broader discussions of alternative housing. We feel that this volume is particularly timely given the renewed focus by policy managers and practitioners, as well as prospective builders themselves, on self-build as a means of producing homes that are more stylised, affordable and appropriate for the specific needs of households. Although there is undoubtedly a UK bias in this volume, we hope it has international salience: to help remind policymakers and practitioners based in countries with a healthy self-build sector why it is important to maintain it.Through their focus on community, dwelling, home and identity, the contributions to the volume explore the various meanings of selfbuild housing, as these emerge in discourse and through experience. They encourage a new direction, within discussions about self-building, that recognises the social dimensions of this process, from consideration of the structures, policies and practices that shape it, through to the lived experience of individuals and households. In this way, the collection PrEfacE vi vi builds on rich traditions of research and theory on housing and planning, alongside conceptual work on these themes drawn from across the social sciences. We encourage each reader to reflect upon the question: 'Why selfbuild?' Many responses are possible depending on who is asked and which viewpoint they represent: self-builder, planner, policy manager, scholar or local resident. As with running an ultra-marathon or climbing Mount Everest, to which projects are often compared, self-builders themselves offer a range of motivations. We believe that these rational explanations tell some, but not the whole story; our aim in this volume is to provide a more complete and balanced picture. Michaela Benson and Iqbal HamiduddinMay 2017 Notes on contributorsMichaela Benson is a sociologist and ethnographer based at Goldsmiths, University of London. Underlying her research has been a longstanding interest in the intersections of space, society and the individual. She is known for her contributions t...

show abstract

Section: Jim Hudsonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Build Homes

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But, despite the emphasis many researchers put on the autonomy, self-motivation, self-management and bottom-up aspects of co-housing (Ruiu, 2014;Chiodelli, 2015;Tummers, 2015b), co-housing projects cannot materialise without the collaboration of public authorities and other stakeholders such as landowners or financial institutions. Projects are formed through interactions and negotiations with planning authorities and other stakeholders, and simultaneously depend on the differentiated input of members.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, groups are often still changing while negotiations and interactions are taking place (Tummers, 2011;Droste, 2015). As such, co-housing projects are always tailor-made, specific and situational (Boelens and Visser, 2011;Jarvis, 2015;Tummers, 2015a;2015b). Some authors discuss the benefits of co-housing communities for societies, and whether or not public authorities should facilitate, promote and support them -and, if so, by what measures (Chiodelli and Baglione, 2014;Chiodelli, 2015;Droste, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But Tummers has framed planning mostly as a contextual feature: guiding principles, national policies, historical and cultural aspects, institutions (national, regional, local), legal frameworks (national, regional, local) and land-use and other functional regulators that play a beneficial or obstructive role in co-housing initiatives (Tummers, 2015b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, in order to understand the role of planning in these processes more attention should be given to the role public authorities, planning criteria and planning processes play in co-housing (Tummers, 2015a;2015b). But Tummers has framed planning mostly as a contextual feature: guiding principles, national policies, historical and cultural aspects, institutions (national, regional, local), legal frameworks (national, regional, local) and land-use and other functional regulators that play a beneficial or obstructive role in co-housing initiatives (Tummers, 2015b).However, from this contextual view, planners stay at a professional distance, and, apart from the role planning frameworks play, do not have to consider themselves as actively entangled in the becoming of co-housing initiatives. This view can lead to the rather simplified statement that institutions, regulations and instruments should be changed and made more flexible to improve conditions for co-housing (Qu and Hasselaar, 2011;Tummers, 2011;Droste, 2015), although perhaps changes in attitude, communication and new governance capacities are much more important (Droste, 2015;Tummers, 2015b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mapping trajectories of becoming: four forms of behaviour in co-housing initiatives

Boonstra

2016

Town Planning Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order learn about planning in a world increasingly characterised by resource interdependencies and a plurality of governing agencies, this paper follows the processes of becoming for two co-housing initiatives. Self-organisation -understood as the emergence of actor-networks -is the leading theoretical concept, complemented by translation from actor-network theory and individuation from assemblage theory. This theoretical hybrid distinguishes four forms of behaviour (decoding, coding, expansion and contraction) that are used to analyse the dynamics of becoming in the two cases. As a result, information is revealed on the conditions that give rise to co-housing initiatives, and the dynamic interactions between planning authorities, (groups of) initiators and other stakeholders that gave shape to the initiatives. Differences between these actors become blurred, as both try to create meaning and reasoning in a non-linear, complex and uncertain world. The paper concludes with a view on planning as an act of adaptive navigation, an act equally performed by professionals working for planning authorities and a case initiator.Keywords: assemblages, co-housing, complexity, self-organisation, spatial planning, translation IntroductionDiversification, decentralisation, dispersion of power and increasing resource interdependency in society (e.g. land, property, knowledge, competences, capital, authority) are posing serious challenges to contemporary spatial planners (Booher and Innes, 2001, 3;de Roo, 2010; Van Wezemael, 2012, 94; Zuidema, 2012, 2). Various planning theorists argue that this societal complexity asks for planning to acknowledge non-linearity, interrelatedness, diversity and multiplicity (Hillier, 2007;Van Wezemael, 2010;Zuidema, 2012). They turn to variegated complexity and post-structuralist theories (such as actor-network theory and assemblage theory), and elaborate on spatial planning as being entangled within a plurality of agencies, including but not limited to those of the state (Hillier, 2007: 10;Boelens, 2009;Boelens and de Roo, 2014).A manifestation of such hybrid planning networks, characterised by resource interdependency, can be found in the practice of co-housing. Framing co-housing as private residential communities, attention has been paid to the institutional, organisational and communal features of already existing groups (Williams, 2005;Vestbro, 2010;Chiodelli and Baglione, 2014;Chiodelli, 2015;Jarvis, 2015). By contrast, limited Beitske Boonstra 276 attention has been given to the way in which a community grows over time, and the interactions with other stakeholders, before the actual co-housing project is established.A distinctive feature of co-housing initiatives is that groups of residents collectively develop their own living environments based upon their own initiative (Tummers, 2015a). But, despite the emphasis many researchers put on the autonomy, self-motivation, self-management and bottom-up aspects of co-housing (Ruiu, 2014;Chiodelli, 2015;Tummers, 2015b), co-housing projects c...

show abstract

Precinct‐scale Innovation and the Sharing Paradigm

Wynne

Riedy

2018

Building Urban Resilience Through Change of Use

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adapting cities through urban infill development is a key alternative to urban sprawl. Infill developments and adaptive reuse projects offer spaces for social innovation that can lead to the discovery new ways of being in the city that are more adapted to sustainability challenges. Such innovations include a reimagining of the way we use spaces, assets and the way we connect with one another. The sharing paradigm captures a broad range of activities and services that are reflective of this reimagining of consumption and ownership. Sharing resources, goods and services can enhance urban resilience by reducing demand for new materials and infrastructure, supporting local economies, and enhancing social networks. This chapter identifies some of the sharing paradigm initiatives that might be enabled through adaptive reuse and infill development in cities around the world.

show abstract

Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: why and how?

Cited by 65 publications

References 14 publications

Self-Build Homes

Self-Build Homes

Mapping trajectories of becoming: four forms of behaviour in co-housing initiatives

Precinct‐scale Innovation and the Sharing Paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About