Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss residents' views of social and physical environments in a co‐housing and in a senior housing setting in Finland. Also, the study aims to point out important connections between well‐being and built environment.

The data include interviews and survey responses gathered in the cases. The results and analysis are presented at different case study levels, with the discussion and conclusions following this.

The findings show that the physical environment and common areas have an important role to activate residents. When well‐designed common areas exist, a higher level of engagement can be achieved by getting residents involved in the planning and running of activities.

This paper discusses residents' experiences in two Finnish housing settings and it focuses on the housing market in Finland.

The findings encourage investors and housing operators to design and invest common areas which could activate residents and create social contacts. Also, investors have to pay attention to the way these developments are managed.

This study is the first to investigate the Finnish co‐housing setting and compare social and physical environments in a co‐housing and a senior house.

The co-housing concept originated in Denmark in the late 1960s as an alternative to traditional housing models. There are four characteristics common to most co-housing projects: participatory process, intentional neighborhood design, extensive common facilities and complete resident management. Quayside Village Co-housing is located in North Vancouver, British Columbia and has provided nineteen dwelling units in a mix of townhouses and stacked apartments around a central courtyard which functions as the heart of the community.

In France and Germany, intergenerational housing is put forward as an option by public authorities. This kind of housing scheme seems like a good solution for seniors and young people, from both an economic and a social point of view. But beyond this common philosophy, there are differences in the way intergenerational housing is being implemented in the two countries. France mainly favours the student-senior home-sharing model whereas the intergenerational collaborative housing (co-housing) model based on solidarity between seniors and families is gaining ground in Germany. The purpose of this paper is to explore the reasons for these differences and present results from field surveys conducted in both countries.

The qualitative methodology of the field surveys consisted essentially of semi-structured interviews with the young people and seniors living in these types of housing, in order to understand how they experienced intergenerational solidarity.

The authors’ surveys revealed that certain conditions are essential for this intergenerational solidarity to be fully effective, notably voluntary participation and commitment to the project, and possibly external support to ensure that it is designed and implemented in the best possible way.

This paper provides useful recommendations for decision makers who wish to support this type of housing concept based on intergenerational solidarity.

The Government's welfare and housing agenda focuses on ‘joined‐up’ thinking, choice, balanced communities and social inclusion. Because there is also much concern about the impact of an ageing population, local planners and service providers are encouraged to think creatively and work together. An example from research in the Netherlands shows how local authorities and the non‐profit sector can work together in an integrated approach to older people.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest that it should be possible to devise mechanisms which will enable communities to address the changing assistance needs of disabled and older residents whilst giving younger resident assistants an equity stake in the housing market. The existence of such mechanisms on a national scale would facilitate mobility between otherwise independent communities and maximise the choices available to residents requiring different forms of assistance at different stages in their lives.

The paper draws upon the author's personal experience of exchanging accommodation with a team of assistants. The author considers how this model could be made more sustainable and replicable. Action research is needed to explore similar models within the context of intentional communities.

Two pressing social challenges could have a unified solution. Cohousing provides potential for people to remain within an intergenerational community as they grow older and develop assistance needs, while providing accommodation equity. Today's “baby boomer” generation may contribute to less advantaged future generations by leaving behind them dedicated housing for assistants in order to make sure that such provision is present within communities in perpetuity.

As a disabled person, the author had found it interesting to actively explore with younger people the impact upon both generations of issues around housing equity. The author has already, and would like to test further, the potential of nonmonetary exchange within intentional communities.

CoHousing provides a new approach in the UK to older people’s housing, and meets a clear demand for similarly minded groups of individuals who would like to grow old together. The purpose of this paper is to explore how a Collaborative Design Process (CDP) can work, as applied to a soon-to-be realised project in North London.

Report by the architects with comment from an end user on a CDP including end users, architect, developer and housing association management.

A group of individuals that has invested in building decision-making capacity can participate meaningfully in the design of their future homes.

This research was focused on one development, so work on a wider range of projects would help test its validity.

Older Women’s CoHousing (OWCH), and similar projects, demonstrate an appetite for: mutually supportive, intentional communities; planned downsizing and contemporary, sociable design for the third age of life.

The CDP developed for OWCH was comprehensively documented. It has already been adapted for further cohousing developments, and is intended to continue to evolve with the demands made on it.

The purpose of this paper is to enquire how housing providers can facilitate a “social scene” which helps residents to bond together and which indirectly can generate both mutual aid and a collective voice.

The study of 16 retirement housing schemes (including social rented, extra care and leasehold), involved focus groups engaging altogether 130 residents, interviews with estate managers and a postal survey with 120 respondents across eight estates.

The findings highlight an important “community development” role for existing on-site managers and the risk that a move to floating support means losing this function. They illustrate the obstacles faced by retirement housing residents in developing collective social activities or a participatory voice in management. This paper is one of several ongoing and planned outputs of the study covering different aspects of the findings.

The initial study reported here is largely based on residents’ views. A follow-up survey of over 400 estate managers is now in progress.

The findings offer warnings about the potential and limitations of self-managed housing for the older old, and the dangers of replacing on-site staff by floating support.

The research fills a gap in previous work on sheltered housing by focusing on the community rather than the individual resident. It will inform planning of housing support models to build and sustain social capital in elders’ housing schemes.

This paper considers the challenges and solutions in relation to older lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGB&T) housing in the UK. The purpose of this paper is to identify the key housing issues and concerns affecting older LGB&T people in the UK, and ways in which these might be addressed.

This is a practical discussion which focusses on the issues of policies and provision in relation to older LGB&T housing in the UK, both specialist and mainstream housing.

There is a growing body of literature from both the voluntary sector and academic researchers highlighting the housing issues affecting older LGB&T people. There is a need for both specialist and appropriate mainstream housing provision. However, policy and funding issues constrain the creation and/or development of such provision.

Policy makers and housing providers in the UK need to address, and meet, the diverse housing needs of older LGB&T people.

Until their housing needs are met, many older LGB&T people remain concerned about their housing futures, and may end up living in housing which is not their preference and which is not suitable for them.

This paper is the first to provide a comprehensive overview of the work of Stonewall Housing’s network for older LGB&T people, and the challenges and solutions which have been identified in relation to their housing issues and concerns.

This paper seeks to define a theoretical model for the urban regeneration of mass housing areas based on citizen initiative, self-management and self-financing in the form of the neighbourhood cooperative. This paper aims to identify mechanisms for economic resource generation that enable the improvement of the urban surroundings and its buildings without assuming disproportionate economic burdens by the local residents based on two principles, the economies of scale and service provision.

The research is structured in three phases: a literature review of the different trends in self-financing for urban regeneration and the conceptual framework for the definition of a cooperative model; the definition of theoretical model by analysing community ecosystem, neighbourhood-based services and the requirements for its economic equilibrium; and the discussion of the results and the conclusions.

The results show the potential of the cooperative model to generate a social economy capable of reducing costs and producing additional resources to finance the rehabilitation process. The findings show not only the extent of economic advantages but also multiple social, physical and environmental benefits. Its implementation involves the participation of multiple actors, which is one of its significant advantages.

The main contribution is to approach comprehensive urban rehabilitation from a collaborative understanding, overcoming the main financing difficulties of the current practices based on public subsidy policies. The model also allows an ethical relationship to be built with supplier companies by means of corporate social responsibility.

Urbanisation is trending globally, leading to population densification and housing shortage and people living increasingly in isolation. This entails challenges to sustainable development including ecological, social and well-being issues. This paper aims to evaluate the effects of a six-month onboarding self-leadership programme including exercises in mindfulness and acceptance and commitment therapy, amongst residents in a co-living space (n = 24) and a waiting list (n = 21).

At baseline and post-intervention, participants filled out questionnaires and two waves of in-depth interviews (n = 24) were conducted. Repeated measures one-way analysis of variance and thematic text analyses were performed.

Participation in the programme significantly (all ps < 0.000 to 0.050) improved relationship quality and communication about one’s needs regarding work-non-work boundaries, especially amongst residents at the co-living space. Moreover, programme participation significantly increased perceived work-non-work boundary control, work-life balance, psychological well-being, psychological flexibility and self-compassion, with effect sizes (hp2) in the medium to the large range (0.14 to 0.39). Qualitative findings suggested that increased psychological flexibility and self-compassion encouraged co-living residents to be more vulnerable and trusting, which enabled communication regarding one’s needs and enhanced mutual social support and relationship quality. This, in turn, improved overall boundary management, work-life balance and well-being.

Co-living settings – while contributing to overall sustainable development through more efficient use of space and resources – can also contribute to societal and individual sustainability. However, to ensure this contribution, the physical environment including private areas and common and semi-public areas, as well as the socio-emotional environment need to be considered.