Mutualism and Cooperatives

Mutualism and Cooperatives

Introduction

            The drastic changes in family structure, coupled with the fast-growing population, have seen an increased interest in cohousing (Newcastle University, n.d.).  Cohousing enables a group of people in the community to work collectively in their quest to design living places that give them a sense of community and privacy and at the same time, offer them such old-fashioned values as independence, neighbourhood safety, and mutual concern (McCamant and Hertzman, 1994). These values can be realised through co-housing which is characterised by such unique aspects as the enhanced scope of cooperation, mutuality, exchange, and reciprocity (McCamant and Hertzman, 1994). Cohousing increases the forms of semi-public and public space. Besides, designers collaborate with various consultants and the community in order to make spaces reasonable. Such collective living is desirable in the sense that it facilitates in protecting the environment (Somerville, 2016). Cooperative housing endeavours to entrench the spirit of togetherness in the environment in which the built environment is situated. The essay seeks to explore the issue of co-housing by reflecting on Frei' Otto's eco-house project in Berlin, commissioned by the 1987 Building Exhibition. In addition, the Lilac housing project in Leeds, UK will also be explored, along with the libertarian and anarchist thinking in as far as cooperative housing is concerned.

Co-operative housing and Co-housing

            Awan, Schneider and Till (2013) have defined a cooperative as ‘’an association of people who have come together on a voluntary basis in order or work towards a common economic, social, or cultural goal, as part of an enterprise that is collectively owned and often also managed collectively’’ (p 130). In other words, cooperatives are, by and large, private enterprises and are therefore exempted from institutional controls that characterise public institutions. The key tenets of cooperatives include self-responsibility, self-help, equality, democracy, solidarity, and equality (Shantz, 2016). The cooperative spirit in the UK is traced back to the mid-1840s when the country was faced with an economic depression triggered by industrialisation. While other sectors of the economy including religion and politics were quick to embrace cooperatives, the same cannot be said of architecture which has been rather slow in terms of embracing cooperative practices and its associated principles. Jones (2011) also notes that while housing cooperatives may be quite popular in many parts of the world, the same cannot be said of the UK. However, this is slowly changing thanks in large part to the harsh economic conditions that have compelled like-minded groups of people to come together and establish cooperatives through which they can then own property (Jones, 2011).

Housing investment tends to be, by and large, capital intensive. It is rare to find land that is available and suitable for housing (Birchall, 2001). The modern civilised society is faced with the challenge of meeting the varied needs of its members who are not in a position to compete fairly and equally in a free market without feeling that they have been socially secluded. This has led to the emergence of a debate in the UK regarding the need to develop mutual strategies and policies whose goal it is to eradicate social exclusion. According to Birchall (2001), housing is a thorny issue in the UK and it is usually manifested in the divide between rental and ownership. The housing cooperative is a minor player in the UK housing market with local authorities providing most of the housing needs. However, there is no doubt that housing cooperatives are quite beneficial to society as a whole. For example, houses provided by cooperatives are affordable, not to mention that they create such social benefits as mutual support networks among members of the housing cooperative.  

            Bamford (2001) is of the view that the 'housing-cum-neighbourhood' form of intentional community draws its roots to the concepts of living together and collective housing (kollektivhus) in Denmark and Sweden, respectively, that dates as far back as the late 1960s. Architects Charles Durrett and Kathryn McCamant were influential in the successful promotion of co-housing in the United States. According to Sherwood (2016), this type of housing cooperative is now entrenched in the UK with over 60 projects underway. According to Somerville (2016), cohousing brings to mind a sense of communalist communities where residents share such communal facilities as open space, community building, workshops, and play areas. The latest cohousing projects now try to reduce environmental impact by utilising waste and on-site materials. Since they recycle their own waste and consume limited amounts of energy, residents of these cohousing projects realise significant reductions in their living costs.

            Cohousing arrangements emphasise creating a sense of community. There is a common house where members cook and share meals on specific nights. Other communal activities include shared gardening, child care, and governance. All of this is geared toward promoting a sense of community (Anderzhon, 2013). Cohousing residents make a conscious decision to live as part of a larger community. According to Anderzhon (2013), the physical design of cohousing projects promotes individual space while also encouraging social contact. There are private homes with all the common features of a traditional home, although residents can also access various common facilities like courtyards, open spaces, a common house, and a playground.

            Co-housing and the associated lived experience of this form of collective housing have remained under-theorised and neglected for a number of reasons. While the desire for conventional close-knit community neighbourhoods has been extensively reported its impact on social policy and urban planning has been influenced by discourses on the role of the state and developers, as well as the new urbanism (Seyfang, 2010). Although unquestionably important and influential, this emphasis successfully shifts the focus from new types of low-impact urban coexistence (Pickerill and Maxey, 2009).   Additionally, the cohousing style suggests a narrow 'housing' interest. While an increasingly larger number of studies today acknowledge the home and house as the “centre of a complex web of social networks and access to essential services” (Coates and Fordham, 2000, p. 2), such terms as 'community' and 'neighbourhood' receive extensive cross-disciplinary engagement. Nonetheless, the innovative element of cohousing is the diverse institutional, coordinating, and social practices that collectively bring about a sense of shared endeavour and solidarity, as opposed to the external appearance and internal layout of the home (Crabtree, 2006).

Frei Otto's Okohaus

            Frei Otto and Josef Paul Kleihues were commissioned to design eco-houses in readiness for the International Building Exhibition (IBA) held in Berlin, in 1987. In this case, the two architects were required to employ the principles of natural building in designing a block of flats. Frei proposed the construction of a low-density "a three-dimensional garden city" characterised by private use of public green (Callahan, 2013). The two skeletal structures that Frei Otto designed were 60 m in height and 35 m in width and were made of concrete. The building consisted of 50 two and one-storey houses and the designers involved future redesigns in the planning process. In addition, consultations with garden designers, eco-architects, and energy experts were made throughout the design process. This was important in order to ensure compliance with all the required social housing guidelines. Generous glazing and solar panels were included in the final design, with the aim of harnessing solar energy, with the rest of the buildings having green surfaces (Callahan, 2013). According to Fraser (1996), the designers gave careful consideration to enhancing the utilisation of the site a fallow land near the Berlin Wall while also endeavouring to retain the existing vegetation (especially trees) in a bid to reduce environmental impact (Fraser, 1996).

Cohousing-Lilac

            The 'Low Impact Living Affordable Community' (Lilac) housing project in Leeds, UK, is a cohousing cooperative under the control of its members. The project consists of a total of "20 highly insulated homes built from timber and straw with a shared common house" (Chatterton, 2014, p. 2).  Lilac's cohousing project hinges on three key values namely, community living, low-impact dwellings, and affordable housing (Chattterton, 2014). It is "part of a broader and now well-established community-led and self-build movement" (Chatterton, 2014, p. 10). Self-builders symbolises the need to develop spaces and places that depict the desires and needs of residents, along with the need to form a self-managed way of living. This has in turn seen some self-builders discard conventional structures in their entirety and instead, embrace low-impact, temporary dwellings such as earthships and benders.

            The design of co-housing projects is such that it encourages social interaction. The Lilac project in Leeds is characterised by a community founded on affordability and sustainability. Members of the 20 households in the Lilac project share a communal laundry facility consisting of five washing machines, and 10 cars between them. The solar panels installed on the roofs of the housing units help the members to save on the cost of electricity, in addition to providing modest income to members. The ownership structure of the Lilac project is quite complicated. According to Sherwood (2014), all members are required to purchase shares in a mutual company. This mutual company owns the site where the buildings have been built and the properties therein. Members are required to pay 10% of their property value to the mutual company and thereafter, can accrue additional shares by constructing 35% of their income to the mutual company. In case a member wishes to leave Lilac they have to offload the shares that they hold in the mutual company. This project fundamentally changed the manner in which individuals view and relate to their housing. More importantly, members need to be active participants in running the Lilac. For example, they are required to participate in at least one of several "task teams" that entail such diverse activities as finance, gardening, general maintenance, and attending quarterly general meetings to set policy and make decisions (Sherwood, 2014).

            Co-housing creates an intentional community which acts as an important object of study in that it gives us a glimpse into the communal spirit that enables human beings to co-exist in heterogeneous societies (McCamant and Durrett, 2011).   Moreover, co-housing acts as an opportunity for sociologists and anthropologists to comprehend the manner in which the need for connection is both configured and reconfigured. The majority of the co-housing projects are located in a countryside setting, with members required to put in a lot of planning, research, and collaboration. Co-housing projects also afford children of such residents an opportunity to interact with many playmates, sufficient space to play, and the chance to force close relationships with adults. The findings of a study by Sargisson (2010) which sought to explore the features and attitudes of some fifty co-housing neighbourhoods in the United States reveal that co-housing is indeed a type of intentional community. The surveys conducted by Sargisson unearth common values and ideas among members, including respect for diversity, “light” environmentalism, and cooperation. Sargisson (2010) further reports that the community design and structural organisation of physical space upon which the co-housing neighbourhoods under survey Hinges permits members to realise their shared goals. Their success, Sargisson (2010) notes, rests on their truly non-ideological nature.   

Libertarian and Anarchist Thinking

            Libertarian anarchism is a type of anarchism and libertarianism. It advocates for individuals to be left alone so that they can live their financial and personal lives as they deem fit. It hence acts in opposition to the state. Anarchism refers to a theory of life or principle that entails conceiving a society without a government. The various groups in an anarchy society achieve harmony through free agreements with other groups in order to realise the fulfilment of infinite forms of aspirations and needs of a civilised being (Ward, 1976). Anarchism creates an opportunity for specific communities to develop social and economic systems that act as a basis for the provisions of such community needs as food, housing, child care, energy, and education, among others (Shantz, 2016). Libertarian anarchists believe in collective ownership of the economic resources in the society which, while they see it as not a source of equality or freedom, nevertheless enables them to partake in a collective decision-making process (Shantz, 2016). They also believe that people should be let to run their individual lives, as opposed to protecting them from themselves. The co-housing concept is based on the theory of libertarian anarchism. Specifically, it assumes the form of communitarian anarchism and shares such core values as cooperation, mutual aid, and autonomy. As a policy to minimise under-occupation, and hence minimise the burden on the environment imposed by housing, McLaren and Agyeman (2015) contend that promoting sharing via positive incentives seems like a good thing to do. However, this could be hindered by the existence of high land values, not to mention that the development industry is also quite powerful. Debates on land taxation would thus go a long way in promoting shared community as far as affordable cohousing is concerned. 

Conclusion

            In sum, cooperative housing encompasses a spirit of mutualism and togetherness in terms of owning and sharing economic resources in society. Cooperative housing has gained popularity in various parts of the world but is yet to take root in the UK. At the same time, co-housing started in Denmark and then spread to other Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, before moving on to the United States and Germany. However, the UK was slow in embracing it but in recent years, there has been a considerable increase in the number of eco-housing projects being constructed in the country. The Lilac Housing Project in Leeds, the UK is a perfect example of how people can come together and take an active role in the design, construction, and maintenance of low-cost houses made using locally available materials which are also environmentally friendly. The same could be said of Frei Otto's Okohaus which was designed in readiness for the IBA held in Berlin in 1987. These and other projects are a constant reminder of how individuals and society as a whole could benefit from co-housing projects which draw their inspiration from libertarian and anarchist thinking. However, government policies that recognises and give incentives for such projects would go a long way in increasing their popularity.