From cohousing to social housing

1. Shared living: solutions for social development.

How Social Change Impacts Housing Patterns

In recent years, the “housing question” has been at the center of many debates in which the focus has been on the reinterpretation of the term “living”.
Economic and social policies have seen representatives of the Government and Administrations focus on the issue in order to provide satisfactory answers. The primary objective has been to ensure, in shared social housing, the same quality as traditional housing models on the market.

Starting in 1960, the new reality of cohabitation made its way into Denmark, which enjoyed growing success until today, a period in which flexibility and temporariness of residence are characteristics of primary importance. A concept of living therefore matures that declines towards different nuances: the hybridization of spaces, the connection and sharing of resources, social commitment, group activities and participatory decision-making processes.

Furthermore, due to the current socio-economic situation, there has been a rapid transition from the permanence to the transitory nature of living. We are increasingly coming to terms with the habit of conceiving space in a changeable way and the uses related to it as different depending on the contingencies. Flexibility thus becomes a fundamental requirement of this type of dwelling and is affirmed in the typology (wide and varied offer) and in the technology (replaceability, adaptability of the components) applied to it.
The changes in the social nature correspond to the change in the relationship between spaces, people and inhabitants so that environments that until yesterday had a precise function and were lived according to the scansions of time, today become places of passage with an undifferentiated function. The articulation of the basic patterns of living follows the changes in the life experience of the individual subject thus making the architectural discipline unstable and continually changeable. This concept that is increasingly gaining ground today, does not allow designers to follow a pre-established model but puts them in the condition of preparing a housing program that can take on different nuances depending on the case.
Among the phenomena that have caused these changes, there are also globalization and sustainability. The first has led to a contraction of time and an expansion of space, with consequently faster rhythms and changes in daily habits. Sustainability instead has put users and designers in front of the problem of containing consumption and saving energy.

2. Coabito ergo sum: interfamily realities compared

Let's see now how social changes and urban transformations have pushed users to look for housing models that are different from the traditional ones. These are living solutions that tend to reconcile the public dimension of the community with the private dimension of the individual.

Here are some examples: 

• Municipality
  Residential communities of people who share both spaces and lifestyle choices.
  
• Solidarity condominiums
  They do not presuppose cohabitation but cooperation between independent family units that share activities and values.
  
• Territorial communities
  This is a larger reality, not necessarily linked to a shared residential building, but to entire neighborhoods in which the inhabitants create social and solidarity networks.
  
• Ecovillages
  Usually located in rural areas, their inhabitants choose resources, food, child care and aspire to a return to nature and healthy living.
  
• cohousing
  Communities of people who are open and free from ideological or religious constraints, where private and common spaces coexist. Groups organize through participatory planning, the identification of collective services and the management of internal activities.
  
• social housing
  Forms of facilitated residence within which residents establish social and collaborative relationships. Nowadays, social housing is changing its original connotation, involving not only the weaker sections of society but also people belonging to various age groups united by the interest in developing sociality and supporting choices based on economic and environmental sustainability.

3. Cohousing and social housing: common features and differences 

As regards cohousing and social housing specifically, these are residential models that aim to provide users with “additional” spaces that can be used in a variety of ways to create sociality and utility.
These are two very similar but different living situations in some ways, which are often confused. Both are based on the idea of ​​sharing: the choice to sacrifice private space in apartments in favor of common areas that encourage socialization.

However, some aspects are different: cohousing is a smaller reality, born from private projects of a few people who often know each other and share values ​​and daily habits. Social housing, on the other hand, is born from purely economic needs, offers housing at controlled prices and develops with the support of medium-large associations and foundations. Location also distinguishes the two realities, in fact social housing all arise in more or less dense urban environments, while cohousing can develop in cities and also in extra-urban contexts.

From the point of view of the design process, the two realities differ in some aspects, first of all the level of "participation" of the future users: cohousing places among its five fundamental points, the participatory process that sees the cohabitants in an equal and active position in the choices and decisions for the organization of cohousing. 
The situation is different in social housing where specially trained professionals proceed with the planning based on the interest in satisfying the needs of the users who, however, cannot participate in the preliminary phase.

As regards the spatial conformation, it manifests itself as a mirror of the needs of the users: while the private apartments are smaller in size, the open common areas and the collective closed environments that host additional services (gyms, playrooms, laundries, taverns, communal kitchens, relaxation rooms, etc.) gain space and encourage individual savings and greater socialisation.

4. Cohousing: a possible alternative to urban living 

There are various types of family realities and they all have a common prerogative: what defines "being a family" is the feeling of familiarity that is not necessarily limited to the regulated social sphere.
The term cohousing from the English “community housing”, is established as a housing reality with the aim of solving the problem of social cohesion and the recovery of community life. Although cohousing experiences do not follow rigid rules, there are some characteristics that unite European, American and Australian cohousing.

First of all, participation and intentional planning that see future residents active from the first moments of the design process in the common choice of the place where to live, in the organization, and in the management of spaces. At the base is a hierarchical structure in which decisions are taken collegially, excluding the figure of the leader.

As for the architectural style, similar to most cohousing, it provides single-family homes or apartments, usually located along a shared street or around a central courtyard. Fundamental importance is given to the common spaces that occupy a large part of the designed space, integrate the private apartments and are favored over them.

Shared services ensure social and economic benefits, in fact even if the initial cost of building a cohousing is usually higher than that of a traditional home, at a later stage the users will begin to notice the significant economic savings thanks to the use of common goods (computers, sports and gardening equipment, cars, bicycles, etc.) and to energy saving choices.

5. Social housing: development, the Italian case

From the analysis regarding the development of social housing in construction, it appears clear that it is closely linked to the change in lifestyles and urban spaces. The city changes as not only a collection of homes but also a place of sociality, a venue for meetings and exchanges between its inhabitants. The concept is gaining ground that collective spaces are not defined only in squares and courtyards but also in actual portions of buildings that become the fulcrum of the social and cohousing project: relaxation rooms, shared kitchens, playrooms and gyms. Therefore, the challenge that social, economic, political and institutional operators must take up is to imagine, design and create a response to the need for housing, which takes into account the social factor as decisive. Social housing today represents a service of general economic interest and must present the requirements of adequacy, safety, healthiness, environmental sustainability and energy saving.

Nowadays, the old council house has been transformed into a “social house”, a dwelling made of natural materials, which uses technologies aimed at energy saving and which aims to provide the best thermal and vital comfort to its users. As regards the Italian situation, in the last ten years there has been a new explosion in the demand for housing at controlled rents with an expansion of the user base.

The increase in housing costs, job insecurity, and consequently lower income, have increased the demand, however the prejudice against the term "social" and the absence of a national law on the matter, do not favor the affirmation of the phenomenon also hindered by urban planning regulations that see expansion as a rule that continues to prevail over the redefinition and recovery of the existing city. As a result, Italy has a low percentage of public residential construction, with 4% it records the lowest percentage of public housing compared to the 20% average present at European level.

6. Case studies: the Turin reality

In recent years in Turin the desire to live in cohousing has been spreading among some groups of citizens. It is a slow process, which requires considerable time and commitment but which has proven to be successful.
In the city scene, some associations stand out that are committed to the development and diffusion of this housing alternative, a well-established example of which is the Coabitare Association.

6.1 Cohousing Numero Zero – Ass. Coabitare, 2012

It was the first real example of cohousing in Turin, sponsored by the project “The Gate Porta Palazzo” aimed at redeveloping the urban area.
Located in a multi-ethnic neighborhood of the city, between older generations of Turin residents and new generations of foreigners, it stands out from other cohousing projects because it starts from the city center and from the initiative of a few highly motivated people.
Starting from the renovation of an old building in Via Cottolengo n.2, today we have arrived at the creation of a simple and functional housing model that, in addition to ensuring a comfortable and economically sustainable lifestyle, contributes to social development.
As regards the structural and technological choices, the designers have moved in a manner consistent with the desire for social and environmental sustainability:

• Morphological conservation of the historic building
• Flexible spaces over time
• Distribution of internal environments in the perspective of social development
• Accessibility of common areas:

             – two multifunctional rooms;
             – a laboratory/cellar;
             – a courtyard on the ground floor;
             – a terrace at high altitude;
             – a technical room.

• Sustainable choices:

             – good insulation of the casing;
             – high thermal performance windows;
             – solar thermal panels;
             – low energy consumption (Energy class B).

• Rules shared by cohabitants

Today the building retains its old structure which has been given new light. It is a successful example of cohabitation in the city and has contributed to the slow and progressive redevelopment of the entire neighborhood.

6.2 Commonplaces – Compagnia di San Paolo – Ufficio Pio

As regards social housing, in recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the demand for rent-controlled apartments in the Piedmont region and in the city of Turin.
One of the latest concrete examples of social housing in Turin is Luoghi Comuni, a project belonging to the Housing Program of the Compagnia di San Paolo with the contribution of Ufficio Pio. It is a temporary residence that occupies an area of ​​2200 square meters distributed on five levels above ground that has set itself the objective of requalifying the territory from an architectural and socio-cultural point of view.

The project has been a real driving force to encourage interaction between the residents of the neighborhood and promote its valorization; in fact, many social initiatives and events have taken place within it.
Of primary importance were some architectural choices that allowed development and social exchange:

• cohesive relationship between building and context (openness of the built block to the surrounding open space);
• elimination of pre-existing diaphragms and creation of new spaces for socialisation;
• increased permeability of the building with respect to the urban fabric in which it is located;
• functional mix of residence and commercial premises;
• facade retrofit (attractor pole).

The spaces of the building are conceived following the rules of flexibility and temporariness so that they are modeled on the needs of ever-changing users. The common areas are designed in order to be used by those who live in the building but also by the citizens of the entire neighborhood who thus perceive social housing as a real attraction center.
No less importance has been given to the aspect of economic savings and respect for the environment with sustainable technological choices.

Finally, the study of the open space at ground level and above ground level has allowed for a re-functionalization aimed at improving habitability and connection with the urban fabric.  

The open space on the ground floor

• new paving of the pedestrian area in front of the building;
• insertion of new street furniture;
• demolition and reconstruction of the lower sleeve;
• insertion of vegetation (aesthetic and cooling function).

The open space at altitude

• full-height glass window in correspondence with the restaurant;
• lamellar structure on the facade ensuring privacy and internal shading;
• photovoltaic cells inserted into the glass parapets of the balconies.

Photos taken from:
www.luoghicomuni.org – www.programmahousing.org – www.compagniadisanpaolo.it

Graphic schemes taken from Chiara Del Core's Master's Thesis "From cohousing to social housing: forms of shared living" - Supervisor Alessandro Mazzotta, Eliana Perucca - Polytechnic of Turin.