Co-housing is an approach to creating an environment with shared values. In co-housing, individuals deliberately gather to build a community that improves their lives [1]. Therefore, co-housing must build a feeling of being at "home" and public facilities for activities together [2]. Co-housing first appeared in Denmark in the mid-1960s. The word "co-housing" is translated from the Danish word 'bofaellskaber' which means living together, which was first introduced in 1898 in a book by McCamant entitled Co-housing: A Contemporary Approaches to Housing Ourselves. In co-housing, residents have a private house and a sharing area. There is a communal space where joint activities will emerge. Co-housing also develops relationships between residents that enable them to share values and social participation [1].
Co - Housing as Social Architecture
McCamant said that co-housing is a way to combat the desire to isolate oneself that often occurs today. The main advantage of co-housing is that residents can enjoy a "sense of community". Co-housing is designed to enhance and elevate social interactions. This is achieved through a clear physical layout. Even though each resident has their own private house or private area, a larger area exists for joint activities. This residence usually has communal spaces such as a kitchen, dining room, gym, play area and guest room. Communal areas in co-housing help users to socialize [1].
The shared vision and values of cooperation activities have a hidden social nature in the form of architecture. In parallel, co-housing is considered a social architecture. Examples of interactions in living activities in co-housing include eating together, caring for plants, and other activities. These activities depend on feelings of mutual belonging in shared goals [3].
Community in Co - Housing
To encourage proper social interaction, the number of people who decide to come together in co-housing must be balanced. Thus, co-housing can be limited using the right design. Durret and McCamant outlined a co-housing framework for creating communities [4].
• Small Community (8 – 15 residents): This is a small community that is mutually beneficial because its management is not too complicated.
• Medium Community (16 – 25 residents): This is a fairly good number if the members of this community are able to get to know each other well. A community with this number is considered the ideal.
• Large Community (26 – 35 residents): The number of communities is considered too large, so there is a lack of social interaction.
Communal Space
Communal space is a typical co-housing space purposely built to create social interaction. These public facilities are implemented in co-housing to build a quality environment. Kopec explores how the environment naturally shapes humans in various phases [4]:
a. A person's perception, cognition, and personality serve as a filter and framework for their understanding and experience of the environment.
b. Social, spatial management refers to a person's personal space, territory, privacy and publicity.
c. The influence of the physical environment on individuals' daily lives from their typical habits at home or in society and their interactions with the environment.
Communal space can be understood as a location for sharing activities, a place used for communal activities. It is included in the semi-public space category, requiring a catalyst or trigger for individual meetings [6]. Therefore, communal space is considered to be able to transform a place into a space, as Lefebvre states that a place changes into a space when there is a meeting, meaning an exchange of positive values between people [7].
Spatially, communal space makes individuals connected. Communal space is a common ground for socializing and being territorially aware of behaviour and self-expression [7]. With the existence of quality communal space, a harmonious living atmosphere is created and improves human relations with their environment. Appropriate spatial arrangement of communal spaces can help maintain a sense of belonging and social problems experienced by users [8]. Communal space design is an interdisciplinary field, which means it involves collaboration from various scientific disciplines. Many factors are taken into consideration in designing communal spaces [8]. Social sustainability, usage patterns, place attachment, security and accessibility are the main determinants for achieving the right quality of communal space [9]. Based on the current literature review, the following aspects of communal space design factors must be considered [10]:
• Architectural Form
• Needs and Living Habits of Residents in Various Age Groups
• Psychology and Human Behavior
• Surrounding environment
• Culture and Religion
Co - Housing and Communal Space
Communal spaces are considered essential for human well-being, in line with increasing attention to the social impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Viewed from the perspective of the person-place process, a sense of place in a communal area has a meditative effect related to mental health. Communal spaces can be perceived, evaluated, adapted and changed by occupants causally with human health. Sense of place in communal spaces becomes a vital bridge connecting communal spaces with individual mental health. Therefore, communal space through the medium of a sense of place is the best way to understand the mental health effects of a residence [11].
Co-housing makes communal space the main point of its big concept. Communal housing is realized in the form of social interactions that occur. A sense of place will automatically create good mental health for residents if connected to communal spaces. They live together in spatial proximity which can reduce feelings of loneliness and social isolation behavior. For example, suppose an individual initially fears social interaction, naturally when living in a co-housing. In that case, there will be changes in the psychological side that make the individual feel comfortable living together but still within the limits of privacy.
What Happened After the Pandemic Covid-19 in the Context of Social Interaction?
The global pandemic, COVID-19, threatens physical and psychological health. During the pandemic, an unprecedented "social distancing" strategy was implemented to limit the spread of the virus. Quarantine and isolation procedures for those infected with COVID-19 are also carried out to speed up healing and maintain the safety of many parties. A study explored the social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is continuing today, namely social isolation [12].
Social isolation is defined by the level and frequency of a person's social interactions. Loneliness is generally defined as a subjective feeling, while isolation is more objective and refers to the individual's social environment. Studies show that loneliness and social isolation are two different things, but have similarities in being detrimental to health [13]. The social phenomena that occur require appropriate solutions for the survival of society. A space that allows social interaction in the post-COVID-19 pandemic can foster a sense of confidence in individuals to start opening up. Co-housing, as a type of housing option, can solve contemporary problems because it indirectly triggers social activities to sustain people's lives. Besides being able to being an economic solution, the social impact of co-housing is a favourable consideration for millennials and Generation Z today.
State of The Art
After understanding the Co-housing object and the communal space theme, the State of the Art chosen is Co-housing with communal spaces that stimulate social interaction. Co-housing is a solution to contemporary problems, where after the Covid-19 pandemic there have been several studies that have implicated the issue of social isolation in several individuals. In Indonesia, in particular, as a developing country, the co-housing concept still needs to be popular. However, co-housing can heal people's psychological health after the Covid-19 pandemic. The following are several literature studies related to selected objects and themes in dealing with contemporary problems:
Journal | Population | Research Method | Invention | Theoretical Stability | Research Gap |
Evaluation Framework for Social Impact on the E-Co-Housing Project in Budapest [14] | Budapest | Social Life Cycle Analysis (S-LCA): evaluates the social impact of residents. | S-LCA assesses the balance of environmental, economic, and social co-housing better to understand the life cycle and impact of co-housing. | By periodically measuring resident satisfaction while living in co-housing, S-LCA focuses on social impact. With S-LCA, there is confidence in the sustainability of good living in co-housing more socially trusted. | Practical Knowledge Gap: The application of S-LCA for co-housing has yet to become popular in Indonesia. |
Architecture and ageing: lessons learned from a cohousing project [15] | Belgia | Case Study: project co-housing on the ground 2.5 hectares containing older people with different work backgrounds. | This project became a guideline for those who want to live in co-housing by paying attention to the social relations process of the residents and their respective behaviour to understand the concept of living in co-housing well. | Things that should understood when designing co-housing: 1. Homogeneity vs heterogeneity 2. Private vs Private shared spaces 3. Personal vs collective 4. Fixed vs polyvalent 5. Mono-function vs poly-function 6. Present vs Present future 7. Budget vs Budget surface area | Population Gap: Population for young adults (25 – 35 years) has not been discussed even though, at this productive age, they are the ones who make the most effort to have the proper housing for the continuation of their lives. |
Enhancing Oneness through a Co-Housing Community [1] | India | Literature Study and Case Study co- housing in India. Supported by questionnaire data from 150 people. | Co-housing increase residents' lives, seen from the feeling of having a new family and mutual cooperation with each other. And also, reduce mental health issues and suicide rates. | Co-housing well necessary considering demographics, landscaping, private homes close to public facilities, maintenance management and shared vision and mission. | Practical Knowledge Gap: In Indonesia, we need to study the specific culture of society which may be different from the studies in this literature. |
Living with strangers: Exploring motivations and stated preferences for considering co- housing and shared living in Bergen, Norway [16] | Bergen, Norwegia | Qualitative Study: Interviews with several residents who have the desire to have co-housing. | Age difference respondents provided knowledge about the differences and similarities in co-housing. Found concept Pragmatic and socially motivated are the main goals of co-housing. | Motivation in Co-housing is the main aspect of realizing sustainable living. In this study, motivation is divided into three things, such as social, pragmatic and environmental motivation. | Empirical Gap: What kind of co-housing architectural concept could be an ideal guideline for motivating people to interact well socially in co-housing? |
Beyond Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Cohousing Life in Contemporary Sweden [17] | Swedia | Qualitative Study: Interviews with co-housing residents, where in Sweden there is a mindset of "cohousing for the second half of life". | Because the residents are spatially close together, the architecture needs to accommodate the privacy and silence needed by residents. Considering geographical, social, economic and family origins, they must work and share space. | Gemeinschaft is a term that refers to a "community" that occurs because of social ties like personal closeness, traditions and shared values. Gesellschaft is a term for "society" or "association" that creates formal social interactions to achieve specific goals. | Practical Knowledge Gap: More knowledge about co-housing needs to be gained among Indonesian people. It is necessary to identify what kind of privacy can be accommodated in co-housing for the sake of continuing to live together by adapting to community life (for example, life after COVID-19) |
The Meaning of a “Sense of Community” in a Finnish Senior Co- Housing Community [18] | Finlandia | Interview on senior co-housing regarding the concept of "sense of community" and "aging in place" | Co-housing beneficial for residents, especially elderly people, as it provides mutual support and social contact that alleviates the isolation and loneliness experienced on a daily basis – day. | “Doing things together and sharing rights and responsibilities” was revealed in a discussion with several co-housing residents. Senses of community associated with sharing knowledge and experiences. | Population Gap: Co-housing for young adults with a high level of productivity (usually individualists). It is necessary to explore the culture of people of productive age in Indonesia - for example the millennial generation and generation Z. |
“Not alone and not in a home!”: The negotiation of later life as a cohousing group in Berlin [19] | Berlin | Literature Study to social perception, issues that occur in co-housing, and reflections on the challenges faced during co-housing. | Co-user housing, with the concept of "Living alone in community" makes them feel protected in terms of privacy, but there are several aspects that can be done carried out with co-residents other housing. | Individual origin social has an effect which is clear and important because in the end they live together in one co-housing for long-term. When you are older, the possibility of having friends is very small, co-housing is able to provide social support for residents. | Population Gap: This literature focuses on elderly co-housing residents. In Indonesia especially, the millennial and Z generations after Covid-19 19 also requires the same social support, co-housing is able to provide social support for productivity. |
Community Housing for the Elderly as a Source of Social Support andPrevention of Social Exclusion [20] | Czech Republic | Interview with co-housing residents from Austria, Germany, Sweden and Denmark | A successful co-housing is derived from an applied social focus. It was found that the residents felt tolerance and respect for each other. They become less lonely because they feel safe. The main advantage of co-housing is the social sector because in old age they can share joint activities. | Co-housing for elderly people is an alternative way to overcome loneliness. Residents have the opportunity to share space at the same stage of life and recognize the values of life without feeling alone. | Practical Knowledge Gap: After the Covid-19 pandemic where people of productive age also had time to work from home and felt lonely, they have new habits that can be adapted to co-housing. |
Initiating Senior Co-Housing: People, Place, andLong-Term Security [21] | Australia | Literature Study with senior co-housing residents. | Co-housing seen as an exciting way to provide safe, affordable housing and reduce self-isolation through a supportive community. | Study results categorize the elements of co-housing as people, place, and long-term security. The person factor (co-housing members) becomes the significant ingredient in co-housing. | Population Gap: This literature focuses on senior co-housing for those aged 40 years and over; there should be further consideration in creating a junior co-housing concept that is intended for contemporary society, especially after the Covid-19 pandemic where several new community habits have emerged that can be accommodated in co-housing. |
A Review on Intergenerational Cohousing: A Possible Living Option For Elderly And Youth [22] | India | Literature Study | Living space between generations creates an environment that supports the social development of all ages. Respecting privacy between individuals becomes an exploration of considerations regarding the appropriateness of living together. | Co-housing design can influence the level of caring between people. Co-housing occupied by young and older adults age gives intergenerational shared living experiences that foster a positive environment. | Empirical Gap: An empirical evaluation through a case study needs to be conducted to determine whether co-housing with elderly residents and young people can be beneficial, considering the differences in activities and habits. |
Based on a literature review, co-housing objects are widely implemented in Europe and Australia, while India is only one of the Asian countries that has widely implemented co-housing. Co-housing has yet to be widely developed in Indonesia, so there is an opportunity to try to implement it as a solution to social problems in society, as has been implemented abroad.
Co-housing is able to accommodate joint activities between residents by implementing social interactions that occur in communal spaces. However, a literature review shows that the majority of studies discuss co-housing for the elderly, which is expected to cure mental health problems such as social isolation. The loneliness and solitude felt by elderly people are a factor in the development of co-housing.
In connection with contemporary problems and increasing social isolation behavior in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era, feelings of loneliness do not only occur in older adults. Millennials and Generation Z especially also experience the impact of loneliness or issues of self-isolation. It happened because, during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were of productive age and socialized a lot, but this stopped due to the "social distancing" strategy to reduce the spread of the virus. The impact of social distancing has triggered social isolation, which continues to this day.
Population Gap occurs in four journals [15], [18], [19], [21], which focus on a group of older adults. By looking at the various advantages of living in co-housing with a community, young people (of productive age, such as Millennials and Generation Z) also have the potential to live together in co-housing. In the end, it is not only social problems that are responded to; economically, they can discuss and share new, higher-quality habits.
Practical Knowledge Gaps were found in four journals [1], [14], [17], [20] which applied several co-housing concepts outside Indonesia. In the journal [13], they try to use Social-Life Cycle Analysis to reflect the lives of residents in co-housing, which, if implemented in Indonesia, will undoubtedly increase people's confidence in living there. Apart from that, there needs to be doubt about the culture of each co-housing location because not all residents will have the same background.
In addition to highlighting shared activities that increase social interaction, residents' privacy must also be considered. The literature [17] reveals the importance of accommodating individual needs beyond collective needs. Co-housing can be created with a healthy social environment if individual basic needs are met.
Journals [16] and [22] found an empirical gap, identifying the need for the co-housing concept to be implemented in real terms to assess its suitability for society in Indonesia. With education regarding co-housing theory and good standards, opportunities arise for the development of co-housing to realize social interaction after the COVID-19 pandemic. Social issues that occur between generations can be resolved through co-housing.
Then, what's the problems?
Co-housing is a commitment of a group of individuals living together, allowing sharing activities in communal spaces such as the kitchen, dining room, living room, play area, work area, discussion area, and others. The social isolation issue after the COVID-19 pandemic can be neutralized with co-housing. From the literature studies that have been analyzed, several problem formulations emerged as research questions:
1. Population Gap
Much literature discusses the implementation of co-housing for the elderly, or what is called senior co-housing, to overcome loneliness in old age. However, what kind of co-housing arrangement can create good social interactions among people of productive age (such as Millennials and Gen Z)? Relation to the post-Covid-pandemic period, social isolation is also experienced in the current generation.
2. Practical Knowledge Gap
Social and cultural conditions in Indonesia are undoubtedly different from those abroad. Literature studies are dominated by case studies abroad, so co-housing popularity needs to be developed more. To overcome social issues during the post-COVID-19 pandemic, co-housing needs to understand the cultural context, behavior, and habits of Indonesian society so that its implementation is by the concept of sustainable living. The focus is on economic issues and social sustainability, which is the most essential basis of co-housing. The question is, how can co-housing provide adequate space for daily productivity and the habits of Indonesian society? How can architectural elements adapt to the occupants' background to maintain healthy social interactions in the long term?
3. Empirical Gap
Literature studies explain various co-housing theories. What kind of architectural co-housing concept could be ideal for Indonesian people? How could Indonesian people interact socially well in co-housing?
References
[1] | N. M. Thankamoniyan and S. Jagadisan, “Enhancing Oneness through a Co-Housing Community,” Space and Culture, India, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 111–137, 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.20896/saci.v9i1.1126 |
[2] | M. Zulkamal Bin Hashim, Z. Leily Awaluddin, A. A. M R, S. Arde Sarkum, A. Budi Sholiha, and A. Ardianta Aziz, “Architectural Design in Rethinking the Future of Co-Housing in Malaysia,” 2021. |
[3] | H. Jarvis, “Towards a deeper understanding of the social architecture of co-housing: Evidence from the UK, USA and Australia,” Urban Res Pract, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 93–105, 2015, |
[4] | M. Zulkamal Bin Hashim, Z. Leily Awaluddin, A. A. M R, S. Arde Sarkum, A. Budi Sholiha, and A. Ardianta Aziz, “Architectural Design in Rethinking the Future of Co-Housing in Malaysia,” 2021. |
[5] | E. Christina and G. I. U. Rangkuty, “CO-HOUSING: A SOLUTION TOWARD SUSTAINABLE SETTLEMENT IN BATAM CITY,” Journal of Architectural Research and Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 103–116, Nov. 2022, https://doi.org/10.17509/jare.v4i2.51519 |
[6] | A. Rochani, N. Yuliastuti, and B. Sudarwanto, “THE EXISTENCE OF WAQF IN ESTABLISHING A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNAL SPACE,” Journal of Islamic Architecture, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 57–66, Jun. 2022, https://doi.org/10.18860/jia.v7i1.15310. |
[7] | Q. Fu, “Communal space and depression: A structural-equation analysis of relational and psycho-spatial pathways,” Health Place, vol. 53, pp. 1–9, Sep. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.06.007 |
[8] | W. Wu and J. Ge, “Communal space design of high-rise apartments: a literature review.” |
[9] | N. A. Malek, S. Z. Mohammad, and A. Nashar, “Determinant factor for quality green open space assessment in Malaysia,” Journal of Design and Built Environment, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 26–36, Dec. 2018, https://doi.org/10.22452/jdbe.vol18no2.3 |
[10] | W. Wu and J. Ge, “Communal space design of high-rise apartments: a literature review.” |
[11] | T. Zhang, J. Liu, H. Chen, and M. K. Ng, “The Associations of Communal Space with Sense of Place and Mental Health in Public Housing: Evidence from Guangzhou and Hong Kong,” Int J Environ Res Public Health, vol. 19, no. 23, Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316178 |
[12] | H.-W. Wang, “Healing Loneliness Post-COVID-19: A Review of Multicultural Exploration of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy’s Success in Western and Eastern Cultures,” International Journal of Human Resource Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 1, Dec. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v14i1.21564 |
[13] | T. J. Hwang, K. Rabheru, C. Peisah, W. Reichman, and M. Ikeda, “Loneliness and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic,” International Psychogeriatrics, vol. 32, no. 10. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1217–1220, Oct. 01, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220000988 |
[14] | A. Babos, A. Csizmady, A. Orbán, and J. Szabó, “Evaluation Framework for Social Impact on the E-Co-Housing Project in Budapest,” Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 47–57, 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3311/PPso.17956 |
[15] | G. Schaff, J. Vanrie, F. Courtejoie, C. Elsen, and A. Petermans, “Architecture and ageing: lessons learned from a cohousing project,” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2345–2371, Dec. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10901-023-10039-9 |
[16] | D. Kvietkute and Å. Lappegard Hauge, “Living with strangers: exploring motivations and stated preferences for considering co-housing and shared living in Bergen, Norway,” Hous Soc, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 128–149, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2021.1972264 |
[17] | E. Sandstedt and S. Westin, “Beyond gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. Cohousing life in contemporary Sweden,” Housing, Theory and Society, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 131–150, Apr. 2015,https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2015.1011687 |
[18] | O. Jolanki and A. Vilkko, “The Meaning of a ‘Sense of Community’ in a Finnish Senior Co- Housing Community,” J Hous Elderly, vol. 29, no. 1–2, pp. 111–125, Jan. 2015, https://doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2015.989767 |
[19] | J. Hudson, “‘Not alone and not in a home!,’” 2019. |
[20] | A. Mojžíšová, D. Dvořáčková, and M. Barták, “Community Housing for the Elderly as a Source of Social Support and Prevention of Social Exclusion 1.” [Online].http://dx.doi.org/10.32725/cetv.2020.036 |
[21] | C. Baldwin, K. Dendle, and A. McKinlay, “Initiating Senior Co-Housing: People, Place, andLong- Term Security,” J Hous Elderly, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 358–381, Oct. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2019.1583152 |
[22] | S. R. Nayak, S. P. Dash, P. S. Amin, and K. G. Priyashantha, “A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING: A POSSIBLE LIVING OPTION FOR ELDERLY AND YOUTH,” New Design Ideas, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 535–556, 2023. |
Comments