Owen Jarvis, Chief Executive, UK Cohousing Network, September 2024.
Introduction
Traditionally, cohousing has been a grassroots, resident-led, and self-funded, resulting in high-quality, award-winning projects with slow progress but enduring communities. UKCN has often called for greater access to sites, investment and technical skills and acknowleged that partnering with developers and housing associations could accelerate growth. However, we’ve rarely considered how their arrival might change the very nature of cohousing itself. A fascinating recent paper by Jensen and Stender in Urban Research and Practice, shines a light on the recent arrival of commercial, “turn-key” models in the very heart of cohousing, Denmark, raising some very important questions for the movement.
New Danish Models
Cohousing is enjoying a renaissance in Denmark. Philanthropic association Realdania, is investing in senior cohousing, estimating 80,000 people are looking to downsize into senior cohousing schemes, yet fewer than 6,000 homes exist. Loneliness affects 104,000 elderly in their country with 39% of those with poor financial resources. Their surveys show, 91% of residents in housing communities for the elderly experience better quality of life, with 75%, better social relationships. Jensen and Stender show that these trends are attracting pension funds, developers, who now contribute to around 30% of new cohousingdevelopments. Many of these are described in the paper as “turn-key” cohousing projects, which differ from traditional models in significant ways.
Traditional cohousing typically consists of 20-40 homes with shared facilities, designed to promote sociability and social connection. They are usually initiated by prospective residents, who play an active role in the design, management, and ownership of the scheme. Participation in daily life and the running of neighbourhoods is integral, often seen as the “grit in the oyster,” where the challenges faced help build resilient, long-term communities. One example of classic cohousing in Denmark is Samfundssind, developed in 1984 and continuing today.
Jensen and Stender described the arrivals of “turn-key” models in the sector, driven by commercial developers and representing a significant shift from traditional cohousing. Residents are not involved in the design process, management, or ownership; they move in just before or upon completion – hence the term to simply “turn-key” for access. Developers argue that this speeds up the process, reduces financial risks for residents, and makes cohousing more appealing to mainstream audiences disinterested in high levels of responsibility and participation. In order to build community, the companies provide hosts or facilitators to cultivate activities. The authors say that to cover the costs of these additional services, turn-key schemes are typically double or triple the size of conventional cohousing. From their interviews, Jensen and Stender found that most residents are satisfied and value the role of hosts, although these schemes are still in their early stages, yet some residents have begun to question the long-term identity and purpose of the “community” they’ve joined. Jensen and Stender also note that many developers do not market their projects as cohousing. Two examples of “turn-key” operations include: Plushusene and Diakonissestiftelsen.
Types of Commercial Developers
The authors point out that there are a diversity of commercial operators and categorise them as follows:
- Traditional construction and developer companies: These firms have established subsidiaries responsible for creating cohousing, primarily focused on senior cohousing through turn-key projects with limited resident involvement before moving in.
- Smaller and specialized companies: These companies work exclusively with cohousing, incorporating varying degrees of user involvement in design and organization, and employing different financing sources. They generally aim to establish age-mixed cohousing, though some also focus on senior cohousing.
- Pension funds: Several have been part of Realdania’s initiative, “Spaces and Communities for the Elderly,” serving as testbeds for concept development. Following this, some pension funds have developed prototypes for turn-key senior cohousing.
- Public housing associations: Typically, resident involvement is central when public housing associations develop cohousing. However, the “House of the Generations” concept, developed in Aarhus by Brabrand Boligforening and the municipality, involves no user participation in design or organization, making it a top-down approach.
- Other actors: This group includes various companies, institutions, and developers that are involved in cohousing on a sparse or ad-hoc basis.
Developer led vs resident led cohousing
They also assess the advantages and disadvantages of commercial cohousing developments versus resident led cohousing.
Jensen and Stender’s conclusion:
“Instead of excluding developer-led cohousing from the traditional approach, we suggest viewing it as an expansion of the concept and as a potential solution to some of the challenges that have plagued traditional cohousing and collaborative housing—such as increased involvement of professional market actors, shortening the process, reducing financial risks for residents, and potentially increasing social diversity.”
Takeaways for the UK
Importance of community ownership
As a colleague, Lev Kerimol points out, one critical aspect the paper overlooks is the importance of resident or local ownership, a cornerstone of the community-led housing movement in the UK. Whilst “turn-key” developers see cohousing through the lens of consumerism and convenience of use, resident or community ownership is, in the UK, often seen as essential for safeguarding against the uncertainties of housing, investment, and land markets all of which create insecurity and uncertainty over tenancy and rents for residents. Cohousing can also be seen as offering a micro-democracy where individual voice and collective power are crucial in shaping neighbourhoods.
Adapting to Change
The evolution of cohousing in Denmark reminds us that the movement must adapt to changing circumstances and opportunities. The digital revolution and the rise of user-centred research allow designers to better predict consumer needs and preferences, drawing on feedback from existing cohousing communities to create designs that foster sociability and appeal. Developers, with their ability to forecast long-term housing trends, may be better positioned to design homes that are easier to sell or rent in the future. It’s also important to note that most residents in a cohousing scheme won’t have been involved in the original design decisions.
Additionally, the rise of the coliving movement, which focuses on short-term use and convenience in a communal setting, suggests that community ownership might be less important to new generations or specific users. For instance, Commune, a French startup, offers serviced coliving communities for single-parent families in the years following a divorce. This model provides services like after-school activities and care, alongside shared meals and peer support, assuming that single parents value reduced responsibilities. Commune serves as a temporary solution until families are ready to move on a few years later. However, while such models address specific accommodation needs, they are not solutions to the broader housing crisis or the urgent need for placemaking.
Examples like La Borda and the work of Philip Graham highlight the importance of designing homes and neighbourhoods that future residents can adjust to changing needs, which is crucial for self-organisation and co-management.
Horses for Courses – different models different benefits
Jensen and Stender acknowledge a middle ground exists between “turn-key” and resident led cohousing. In the UK, specialist developers like TOWN act as consultants or lead the development process, recruiting residents once a site and financing are secured, and involving them in the design process. Crucially, they hand over the site and management to the residents at the end of the build. Here’s a film showcasing TOWN’s best-known scheme, Marmalade Lane.
Equally, some commercial models involve residents in the design more than others. PensionDanmark’s cohousing communities in Køge and Ry adopted a model where future residents began the community-building process after signing leases but well before moving in. During this period, residents met to discuss community values and everyday life, contributing to the design of shared spaces. The entire process was supported by professional facilitation to ensure the community got off to a strong start. In the UK Housing 21, a non-profit housing association aiming to establish 10 senior cohousing schemes for social rental in Birmingham’s underserved communities. Given the choice, prospective residents opted to leave property management to Housing 21, focusing instead on enjoying the sociable, neighbourly environment being created. UK Cohousing Network has framed these types of projects as “cohousing inspired” or “cohousing lite,” and I believe these terms also apply to other emerging commercial models where full resident involvement in design or ongoing management are reduced.
Growth for traditional cohousing?
For conventional cohousing to thrive, government support for self-commissioned housing is crucial. Despite growing demand, cohousing supply in the UK remains limited, largely due to insufficient support for self and custom builds. The Bacon Review highlighted that only 7% of new UK housing is delivered through these methods, compared to over 40% in some European countries. There is hope that in order to achieve ambitious targets, the new UK government strategies will expand opportunities for citizen-led, self-commissioned housing, like cohousing, to complement efforts of the private and public sectors. This would require a robust ecosystem of SME builders, designers, funders and legal advisors, empowering ordinary citizens to create their own communities. Experiences of other countries show it can be done.
The Path Forward – “turn-key or turn-off?
For many in the cohousing movement these trends represent “a deal with the devil” – accepting greater and more rapid growth in exchange for loss of core elements of traditional cohousing. Whilst initial reports from residents are positive, it remains to be proven whether “turn-key” developments can achieve the same sense of community through hosts and facilitators and indeed, whether the social and environmental benefits of living in cohousing can be replicated without resident leadership. However, as a movement, whilst asking the question, we have to remain open minded about the potential positive impact of “cohousing inspired/light” schemes and whether they will become popular with the mainstream.
A middle way exists. The future of cohousing may lie in blending approaches—combining the efficiency of commercial development with the core principles of resident-led communities. A hybrid model, where developers and non-profits empower residents to design their communities and assume ownership post-occupancy, supported by expanded self and custom build opportunities and backed by pension funds, could be the key to growth while preserving the essence of cohousing.
Conclusion
The genie is out of the bottle and turn-key developments are here to stay and bring with them new sources of investment and technical expertise to address some barriers to growth which may in turn spill over into the cohousing movement. We should watch with interest, and learn lessons offered by business-driven approaches, remaining open minded of new forms of cohousing development and their degree of impact and popularity. At the same time seeking evidence to champion the important values of traditional cohousing, sociable, connected neighbourhoods, community identity and resident ownership.