Collaborative housing

According to the definition given to this umbrella term by Czischke, Cariou and Lang (2021), collaborative housing (CH) encompasses various housing typologies in which collaboration between residents and stakeholders of housing production is central. These authors stressed the importance of the term for conceptualizing a wide range of housing provision forms that present different interactions between traditional housing actors such as public authorities, private developers and/or non for profit organizations, together with future residents. These collaborative endeavours include different degrees of collective self-organisation or participation of residents to this collaborative process of housing provision and subsequent housing management.

The academic literature presents CH as re-emerging since the 2000s in Europe in response to contemporary societal challenges such as housing affordability, better environmental practices (Czischke et al., 2020; Fromm, 2012; Lang et al., 2020; Tummers, 2016) and in some cases, social inclusion, stimulated by public policies . The model is therefore considered to be a potential answer to the affordability crisis, since collaborative processes in conjunction with particular tenure statuses could allow for savings in construction and management costs as, well as energy (Brysch & Czischke, 2021). Additionally, these models of co-creation of housing solutions address environmental challenges through several resource saving practices of eco-engineering (Tummers, 2016).

In conjunction to the development of such new practices of housing provision, collaborative housing has become a growing research area for of interest for different disciplines, from urban planning to housing studies, public health and environmental studies (Brysch & Czischke, 2021; Czischke et al., 2020; Fromm, 2012; Lang et al., 2020).  

CH draws inspiration from a wide range of self-organised housing forms, such as “resident-led cooperatives, cohousing, eco-villages, Community Land Trusts (CLTs)””, acknowledging collaboration among residents and with external stakeholders as a common thread (Lang et al., 2020, p. 1). However, unlike cohousing(Czischke et al., 2020), this is not always a bottom-up community-based initiative. The term collaborative housing refers to a broader spectrum encompassing also ‘’coliving’’ or commercial shared rental housing (Ronald et al., 2023), that are market-driven and prioritize profit oriented capital production through short-term rentals catering to remote working elite or middle-class individuals (Bergan et al., 2021).

Therefore, the conceptualization of collaborative housing invites researchers to question differences and similarities of these new and wide set of practices with more established forms. Cohousing is such a case in point, since it stands for a set of guiding values and principles such as : collective solidarity and autonomous decision-making (Labit, 2013), co- design of the future homes,sharing decisions, spaces and facilities. The physical design is conceived to enhance social interactions, therefore it usually involves multifunctional rooms, laundry facilities, bike repair shops, children's playrooms, and guest rooms, as well as green spaces like courtyards, gardens, or plots (Durrett & McCamant, 2011).

In addition to finding out if collaborative housing still promotes these core principles of cohousing, it raises the question of the possibility to overcome some of the limitations of previous models. Some scholars have raised concerns about the accessibility of cohousing projects, both financially and culturally, based on the small participation of vulnerable groups with financial difficulties (Ruiu, 2015) and the rare presence of individuals with low cultural resources (Bresson, 2016).   Fighting the risk of becoming a social elitist community, CH can act as a support for sustainable urban development through more collective forms of tenure, ownership, and land use (Jarvis, 2011) and can play an important role in revitalising neighbourhoods (Fromm, 2012). It can facilitate more social interactions (Williams, 2005) organising activities and social gathering opportunities for the neighbourhood, and can influence the adoption of more sustainable practices and ways of life. From a social capital theory perspective, CH, just like cohousing, can therefore produce social impact in terms of strengthening bonding social capital within the internal community, and bridging social capital with neighboring communities (Ruiu, 2016).

While CH has emerged as an alternative housing solution, its success remains confined to a niche from a quantitative standpoint (Droste, 2015) but its potential for scaling up is bigger than in the case of cohousing, because of the involvement of traditional actors of housing provision. Since state-driven initiatives are emerging in certain European countries, as documented by Bressons and Labit in France or in Italy[1], and using the self-management and reciprocity dynamics brought by collaborative housing to balance the lack of welfare, CH appears to be a relevant model for more inclusive housing provision. In this perspective, it could also facilitate inclusion of socio-economically vulnerable people (Ruiu, 2015), although introducing concerns about the actual possibility for these groups to perceive themselves as agents of their own housing situation (Czischke et al., 2020) and contribute to the upstream phases of collaboration for housing co-creation.