Learning from Co-Housing Initiatives

14 2017 Learning from co-housing initiatives Between Passivhaus engineers and active inhabitants Lidewij Tummers Learning from co-housing initiatives Between Passivhaus engineers and active inhabitants Lidewij Tummers Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Departments of Architectural Engineering + Technology, Management of the Built Environment and Urbanism TOC abe.tudelft.nl Design: Sirene Ontwerpers, Rotterdam ISBN 978-94-92516-84-8 ISSN 2212-3202 © 2017 Lidewij Tummers All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the author. Unless otherwise specified, all the photographs in this thesis were taken by the author. For the use of illustrations effort has been made to ask permission for the legal owners as far as possible. We apologize for those cases in which we did not succeed. These legal owners are kindly requested to contact the publisher. TOC Learning from co-housing initiatives Between Passivhaus engineers and active inhabitants Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben, voorzitter van het College voor Promoties, in het openbaar te verdedigen op Woensdag 25 oktober 2017 om 15 uur Door Lidewij Chantal TUMMERS-MUELLER Bouwkundig Ingenieur, Technische Universiteit Delft, Nederland geboren te Amsterdam, Nederland TOC This dissertation has been approved by the promotors: Prof.dr. A.A.J.F. van den Dobbelsteen and Prof.dr. E.M. van Bueren Composition of the doctoral committee: Rector Magnificus chairperson Prof.dr.ir. A.A.J.F.van den Dobbelsteen promotor Prof. dr. E.M.van Bueren promotor Independent members: em.Prof. dr. S. Denefle Université François-Rabelais Tours, France Prof. dr. J.S. Clancy Universiteit Twente Adj.Prof. dr. L. Horelli Aalto University, Finland Prof.dr.ir. H.J. Visscher Technische Universiteit Delft Dr. G. de Vries Technische Universiteit Delft Prof.dr.ir. V.H. Gruis Technische Universiteit Delft TOC In remembrance of Marijke (†2013), visionary and true mentor TOC TOC Preface In my work as building engineer, I am most happy when working out a combination of location, building and utilities that creates optimal conditions for the envisioned users. The creativity of designers can make these aspects work together, but in our contemporary, complex and sectorised societies, this is an increasingly difficult task. Self-organised housing initiatives shed a fresh light on this challenge, because their image of living conditions does not separate structural engineering from utilities engineering, nor oppose the interests of efficient producing to the quality requirements of long-term functionality. However, precisely for this reason, on the way to realisation of their housing project, such initiatives experience numerous frictions with professional partners and institutional entities. The building industry and spatial planning generally perceive residents as consumers or beneficiaries, rather than actors with a specific expertise. These observations formed the motivation for the research presented here. To promote the end-user (of residential space) to become ‘client’, as Dutch housing policies have done since 2000, seems an obvious way to create customised living and working space. Many resident associations have shown this can be the case, however working on this research confirmed that this is not the ultimate solution. Decentralising the technosphere, enabling its appropriation by so-called ’non- professionals’, has many implications, first because it questions public governance as mediator of conflicting interests, and second because there is always a certain amount of opportunist appropriation at the expense of so-called illiterate or vulnerable groups. Self-organisation therefore holds many controversies, which engineers need to be aware of. Focussing on the ‘bricks’ rather than on the ‘people’, this thesis argues there are significant lessons to be learned from self-organised housing in Europe to accomplish the UN ‘New Urban agenda’. The combined creativity of residents and their technical advisors observed in the case-studies holds the promise of adequate local solutions for primary needs such as water, energy and shelter. Although this book is delivered for an academic context, I hope it may also be of use and encouragement for residents and engineers working on environments with low environmental- but positive human impact. TOC TOC Acknowledgements Writing a PhD is a journey with many unexpected turns. And, as Myra Römer observes1, the length of the journey depends on the company along the way. I was fortunate in finding many critical friends on my path who –often unknowingly- nudged me forward or pushed me off track into new directions. While it is impossible to name every single one, I would like to thank especially the following persons: Ir Ineke Hulshof for showing at an early stage that participatory design can be professionally done; ir Frans de Haas for breaking the way for sustainable engineering in the Netherlands; professor Vincent Nadin for admitting me to the TUD doctoral programme; the colleagues of Spatial Planning and Strategy for their humour and support; the founding members of the European network of co-housing researchers: Dr Magdalena Baborska-Narozny, arch. Veronika Bestakova, dr Claire Carriou,0 dr Lydia Coudroy de Lille, dr Christiane Droste, Mischa Fedrowitz, Bence Komlosi, Anne Labit, Jana Šafránková dr Kate Scanlon, Hanna Szemző, dr Anja Szypulski for many inspiring exchanges; and especially: dr Sabrina Bresson for the pleasure of inter- disciplinary teaching and the study trip on baugruppen-based planning; dr Melissa Fernandez Arrigoitia for sharing a sociologist view and a study trip on professionalism; dr Helen Jarvis and prof Fionn Stevenson for the extraordinary ESCR seminar series on co-housing; dr Heidrun Wankiewicz for being the most integer entrepreneur and caring geographer in this field. I am grateful to dr Sherilyn Macgregor for sharing feminist theoretical insights and support in times of crisis; Prof Em Sylvette Denèfle for introducing me to academic rigour without loss of creativity; and prof. Susan Buckingham for introducing me to the Gender and Climate Change debate and lending institutional support. I am indebted to the residents who make co-housing happen, especially those who shared their experiences for the benefit of this research. Their individual names are for privacy reasons not mentioned here. Many thanks to my promotors for the time they have squeezed out of their busy schedules: Prof.dr.ir. Andy van den Dobbelsteen, supportive as well as straight-forward throughout; and prof dr Ellen van Bueren, stepping in at the last phase but nonetheless painstakingly accurate in reading and feedback. To my nearest and dearest Katja, without whom this would not have been achieved, I can only say: Liefste echtgenote, het boek is daar, nu eindelijk tijd voor ons eigen samenhuizen… 1 Verhalen van FIta, 2005 TOC 10 Learning from co-housing initiatives TOC Contents List of Tables 17 List of Figures 18 Samenvatting 21 Summary 27 1 Introduction 35 Engineers learning from residents? 1.1 Relevance and objectives 35 1.2 Problem statement and hypotheses 37 1.3 Research questions 39 1.4 Positioning this thesis 40 1.4.1 Perspectives 40 1.4.2 Techno sphere and engineering 41 1.5 Methods and case-studies 43 1.6 Structure of the thesis 47 2 A critical review of co-housing research 53 The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in Europe 2.1 Introduction: the re-emergence of co-housing in the 21st century. 54 2.2 Literature review: main research themes 57 2.2.1 Theme 1: Advocacy; guides and case-studies. 57 2.2.2 Theme 2: Changing lifestyles - accommodating the everyday. 59 2.2.3 Theme 3: Architecture and designing community. 62 2.2.4 Theme 4: Neighbourhood development: island or oasis? 63 2.2.5 Theme 5: Emerging issues: financial and legal aspects 65 2.3 Delineages and conceptualisions of co-housing 66 2.4 Conclusions 71 11 Contents TOC 3 Background 77 From global to local 3.1 Global challenges 77 3.2 Institutional response: goals and agendas 79 3.3 Grass-root response: local action 81 3.4 Co-housing in European perspective 82 3.5 Co-housing locations 84 3.6 Update of the literature review 85 3.7 Conclusions: interaction between institutional and grass-root actors 86 4 Dutch context 91 Self-organisation facing housing and energy-policies 4.1 Sustainability Policies in the Netherlands 91 4.1.1 Growing national awareness 91 4.1.2 The heated debate around natural gas 94 4.1.3 Bottom of the global list 95 4.2 Dutch housing provision 96 4.2.1 Institutional housing provision 96 4.2.2 Promoting self-development and home-ownership 97 4.3 The rise of civil initiative 99 4.4 Context clusters for comparison 99 5 Co-housing design 103 New qualities through new housing coalitions? 5.1 Introduction 103 5.2 Context: re-emergence of co-housing 105 5.3 Co-housing design 107 5.4 Case-studies: the lowlands and the alpine country 110 5.4.1 Netherlands 111 5.4.1.1 MW2 de Bongerd 1997 112 5.4.2 Switzerland 115 5.4.2.1 Equilibre: a typical Swiss co-op project, 2007 116 12 Learning from co-housing initiatives TOC 5.5 Projects compared 118 5.6 Demand-driven design: top-down or bottom up? 120 5.6.1 The ‘2000 watt society’: a Swiss spatial strategy to mitigate climate change 120 5.7 Conclusions 123 6 Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective 127 Why and how? 6.1 What is co-housing? 128 6.2 Typologies of co-housing 133 6.3 Incentives for the emergence of co-housing 137 6.4 Understanding co-housing: does planning context matter? 140 6.5 Conclusion: indicators for co-housing as urban quality.

Load more