Content uploaded by Ulrike Hacke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ulrike Hacke on Dec 06, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Ulrike Hacke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ulrike Hacke on Dec 06, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
GAIA is available online at www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oekom/gaia
www.oekom.de |B 54649 |ISSN print 0940-5550, online 2625-5413
GAIAEA 28/S1,177– 248 (2019)
SPECIAL ISSUE
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY: PERSPECTIVES OF CHANGE
ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
ÖKOLOGISCHE PERSPEKTIVEN FÜR WISSENSCHAFT UND GESELLSCHAFT
ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 28/S1(2019): 177– 248
SPECIAL ISSUE SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY: PERSPECTIVES OF CHANGE
S1|2019
DIE GUTEN SEITEN DER ZUKUNFToekom.de
Habitat in danger
»The ocean sustains all life. Understanding how it works
and how we are affecting it is vital for securing our future.
The Ocean Book provides the full briefi ng.«
Dr Tony Juniper CBE, environmentalist
Rising sea levels, leaking oil rigs, growing garbage patches and overfi shing: our oceans are in
grave danger. »The Ocean Book« provides a comprehensive picture and makes correlations visible
and easy to understand with the help of detailed infographics.
Esther Gonstalla
The Ocean Book
How Endangered are our Seas?
oekom verlag, München
128 Seiten, Hardcover, zweifarbig, 24,– Euro
ISBN: 978-3-96238-034-2
Erscheinungstermin: 01.03.2018
Auch als E-Book erhältlich
Mit Schülerinnen und Schülern zu Nachhaltigkeit forschen
Die Robert Bosch Stiftung fördert Projekte, die wissenschaftsbasierte Antworten zu Alltagsthemen
wie Ernährung, Konsum, Mobilität und Umwelt geben.
Welche Folgen hat der Klimawandel konkret für unsere Region? Wie wird unsere Umwelt durch
unsere Ernährungsgewohnheiten beeinflusst?
Wissenschaftlerinnen, Wissenschaftler und Lehrkräfte mit einer Projektidee können sich
bei der Stiftung um Fördergelder bewerben.
Neugierig geworden?
Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter www.bosch-stiftung.de/ourcommonfuture
Jetzt
bewerben!
GAIAS1_2019_Umschlag_72S_4,5mm_lv 06.08.19 17:56 Seite 2
GAIA 28/S1(2019): 233– 239
233
>
RESEARCH
Cohousing – social impacts and major
implementation challenges
Local social networks are in decline, and housing is growing increasingly expensive. These are but a few of the
current challenges in the field of housing. One possible solution is cohousing projects:these form local communities,
create affordable housing, and contribute to a sustainable economy. Nevertheless, diffusion of cohousing remains slow.
Transforming the housing sector is possibleonly as part of a larger political or social movement.
Ulrike Hacke, Kornelia Müller, Elisabeth Dütschke
Cohousing – social impacts and major implementation
challenges
GAIA 28/S1(2019): 233 –239
Abstract
This paper builds on outcomes of the TransNIK project which analysed
sustain able innovations in the fields of energy, water and housing. The focus
here is on innovative cohousing initiatives contributing to a supportive
environ ment for seniors and families and providing social mixing and
rent reduction in the long term. The case study of four multi-generation and
two 50plus projects through document analysis, interviews, expert workshops
and a survey has highlighted social benefits, economic and ecologic above-
standard-solutions, but has also demonstrated that the implementation of
such projects is full of preconditions. The implementation rate of cohousing
projects shows little dynamics. Therefore, a systematic presentation of
success factors, barriers and difficulties to transformation processes is given.
However, cohousing projects are dependent on support, and there are
indications that politics and sections of the housing industry are gradually
becoming more open to these ideas. In addition, we are witnessing the
slow growth of a consulting infrastructure.
Keywords
case study, cohousing projects, housing for the elderly, neighbourhood,
social innovation
Ulrike Hacke, Dipl.-Soz. |+49 6151 290449 |u.hacke@iwu.de
Kornelia Müller |k.mueller@iwu.de
both: Institut Wohnen und Umwelt GmbH (IWU) |Rheinstr. 65 |
64295 Darmstadt |Germany
Dr.Elisabeth Dütschke |Fraunhofer Institute for System and Innovation
Research ISI |Competence Center Energy Technology and Energy Systems |
Karlsruhe |Germany |elisabeth.duetschke@isi.fraunhofer.de
©2019 U.Hacke et al.; licensee oekom verlag. This Open Access article is published under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License CCBY 4.0(http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
https://doi.org/10.14 512/gaia.28.S1.10
Submitted December 12, 2018; revised version accepted June 27, 2019.
otential pathways towards sustainability call for a change of
practices in many areas of life. This paper explores innovative
initiatives in the field of housing. Cohousing projects are promis -
ing experiments in building local social networks. Some of them
show how low-cost housing is possible in the long term. Howev -
er, their diffusion faces a range of obstacles.
The paper builds on research from the project Transitionsgestal -
tung für nachhaltige Innovationen – Initiativen in den kommunal ge -
prägten HandlungsfeldernEnergie, Wasser, Bauen& Wohnen (TransNIK)
– one of the projects exploring a sustainable economy funded by
the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).
TransNIK considered sustainable innovations in the domains of
energy, water and housing – all closely connected with the munic-
ipal level (Dütschke et al. 2019). In the following, we outline the
main challenges in the housing sector and introduce cohousing
as a social innovation. We provide more detail on six cohousing
projects and examine their effects, especially with regard to the de-
sired social networking. We analyse and discuss the factors affect-
ing their diffusion, and draw conclusions.
Current challenges in the field of housing
The housing market in growth regions, in particular in the bigger
cities, is affected by above-average new and re-letting rents. In the
period from 2005 to 2011, the number of districts with rising rents
increased from 25 percent to 77 percent (BBSR 2012). The develop -
ment of the real estate market is similar: it became more expen-
sive by about one fifth between 2010 and 2015 for both residential
real estate and building land – again with strong regional varia -
tion (price index of the Federal Statistical Office). These price de -
velopments, together with the development of incomes, are mak-
ing it increasingly difficult for certain populations to acquire ade-
quate housing on the open market. According to calculations by
the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), income has
fallen in real terms in the lower 40 percent of the income distri-
bution between 2000 and 2012, while it has stagnated in the mid-
dle, and has risen by more than 15 percent in the top tenth of the
income distribution (Goebel et al. 2015).
P
233_239_Hacke 06.08.19 19:28 Seite 233
GAIA 28/S1(2019): 233– 239
234234 RESEARCH Ulrike Hacke, Kornelia Müller, Elisabeth Dütschke
Societal development is characterised by individualisation and
pluralisation of lifestyles. The change brings with it an older resident
population, smaller households and a declining number of multi-gen-
eration households (Statistisches Bundesamt 2015, 2016).
Kinship networks are getting thinner and make, together with a
changed role of women and dispersed living, everyday support through
the family more difficult (Schubert 1990). At the same time, other tra-
ditional relationships are losing their importance. This also applies
to neighbourhoods; urban relationships are increasingly built on
friendship and spatially dispersed (Friedrichs 1995). Both increase
the lack of locally available relationship networks.
New forms of housing intend to fill that gap (Häußermann 2009).
Cohousing projects have developed since the 1970s (Brech 1999), but
they currently only constitute a small share in Germany, with an es-
timated 2,000 to 3,000 projects (Wohnbund 2015).
Cohousing projects are characterised by separate flats as well as
shared space, a certain degree of self-organisation and the intention
to foster neighbourly relationships (Ginski et al. 2012). The respec-
tive motivation of such initiatives may vary, but they can be under-
stood as experiments for the conscious construction of local networks.
In light of an ageing society we focus on projects (also) addressing peo-
ple over the age of 50. The interest of the elderly in new forms of liv-
ing increased in the last years (Hugentobler and Otto 2017). This trend
could continue due to an increasing proportion of milieus with high-
er openness and willingness to engage (Hallenberg 2017).
Case selection and methodological approach
The six projects studied represent different types with specific organi -
sational and implementation requirements (Hacke et al. 2017) (table
1). They were selected from a list of 104 identified multi-generation
projects and 38 50plus projects. They should have been inhabited for
at least three years and needed to be of a certain size (20 respectively
ten flats) in order to allow for a certain degree of social dynamics. In -
tegrating income groups who are not able to acquire property seems
to be important for a wider diffusion. Therefore, projects were cho-
sen that also include rental flats. Furthermore, the extent to which
professional partners are involved and the legal form chosen play a
role in coping with implementation problems. Hence, the choice fell
on two autonomous civic projects (Landau, Heikendorf) and two proj-
ects initiated by citizens, but realised in cooperation with housing pro -
viders (Stuttgart, Langen) as well as two top-down projects initiated
and realised by housing cooperatives (Munich, Wilhelmshaven).
For each case study, two to three guided interviews were conduct-
ed on the motives, obstacles and success factors in the planning, reali -
sation and use phase. Interview partners were groups of founding mem-
bers, other residents and external cooperation partners involved.
The reported obstacles to implementation were compared with an
expert report on cohousing projects from Denmark (Tornow 2017).
In addition, case selection and results were discussed with consul -
tants of projects (Müller et al. 2017).
A written survey of the residents’ expectations before and experi -
ences after moving in was conducted for all the projects (Baumann
TABLE 1: Overview of the six cohousing projects.
PROJECT
Generationenhof Landau
Torfwiesen-Au Heikendorf
Haus Mobile Stuttgart
Ginkgo 1 Langen
Wogeno-Haus Caroline-
Herschel-Straße München
Gemeinsam älter werden
und Wohnen unter einem
Dach Wilhelmshaven
LEGAL FORM
one-house cooperative
one-house cooperative +
homeowners association
umbrella cooperative +
homeowners association
homeowners association
in cooperation with a
housing company
umbrella cooperative
traditional cooperative
INITIATION
bottom-up
bottom-up
bottom-up
bottom-up
top-down
top-down
small consulting firm specialised in consulting project
initiatives
project developer with a large catalog of services,
primarily mixed forms of ownership; many own
developments
small cooperative, offers itself to existing groups as a
service provider, primarily property development
business, rental apartments are “loss-making business”
communal housing projects as a small complementary
business, already implemented six projects; proven
participation model
small cooperative with expansive business model for a
speculation-free and welfare-oriented housing manage-
ment
traditional cooperative with strong neighbourhood
reference, senior project was “experiment”,
currently no repetition planned
FLATS
37 rental flats
30 owner-occupied,
rental and subsidised
rental flats
24 owner-occupied,
rental and subsidised
rental flats
26 owner-occupied
and rental flats
28 rental and sub -
sidised rental flats
11 subsidised
rental flats
AGE MIX
young + old
young + old
young + old
50+
young + old
60+
wohnprojekt+ beratung
und entwicklung GmbH
conplan Betriebs- und
Projektberatungsgesell-
schaft mbH
pro... gemeinsam bauen
und leben eG
Gemeinnütziges
Siedlungswerk GmbH
Wogeno eG
Bauverein Rüstringen eG
SUPPORTING ORGANISATION/PROJECT DEVELOPER AND ITS MOTIVATION
233_239_Hacke 06.08.19 19:28 Seite 234
GAIA 28/S1(2019): 233– 239
Ulrike Hacke, Kornelia Müller, Elisabeth Dütschke 235RESEARCH
et al. 2018), with a response rate of 20 to 50 percent per project.
The total of 103 participants lived in the projects for seven years
on average. Almost two-thirds were already involved in the imple -
mentation phase. 61 percent were retired and 13 percent had chil-
dren under 18.
Short history of the cohousing projects
Landau, Rhineland-Palatinate
The citizens’ initiative took more than ten years to move into the
facility with privately financed cooperative flats and a shared flat
for those requiring care. The financing concept and the land were
major obstacles that were finally overcome with the help of a dif-
ficult-to-find project manager and the city council.
Heikendorf, Schleswig-Holstein
Over the course of its eight-year implementation process, the ini -
tiative changed concept from a “pure” cooperative to a mixed le-
gal form. The success of the project is attributed to the support of
a consultancy office specialised in group-housing projects. A proj-
ect-related development plan of the municipality protected the
group from competitors for the property.
Stuttgart, Baden-Wuerttemberg
Immediately after its creation, the citizens’ initiative joined a small
cooperative set up to help implement cohousing projects in the re-
gion. The city provided the land at low cost. In the rental flats pub-
lic funding from the city and state could be combined. As a proper -
ty developer, the cooperative mainly builds owner-occupied flats,
but also manages the subsidised rental flats of various mixed proj-
ects.
Munich, Bavaria
The small umbrella cooperative (see below) initiated and moder-
ated the group in obtaining a leasehold property from the city based
on a binding reduction of car ownership. The first members of the
project, which is located in an initially negatively rated new devel -
opment area, came from a project initiative that had already failed
once. Most of the flats are subsidised by different funding pro-
grammes in Munich.
Wilhelmshaven, Lower Saxony
The cooperative initiated and supervised the project group in the
context of the refurbishment of an existing building in coopera -
tion with the city council’s representative of senior citizens. The
project group decided on cohousing for elderly instead of a mul-
ti-generation project. It is not planned to repeat the experiment
because of the extremely complicated implementation process,
es pecially due to the high turnover of the interested parties.
Langen, Hesse
The citizens’ initiative took seven years to move into the first build-
ing that includes a shared flat for persons with dementia. In the
course it changed its concept from a multi-generation to a 50plus
project. The search for a developer and land that could be pur-
chased through the church proved difficult. The property devel-
oper, a large, formerly not-for-profit housing company had al-
ready carried out the construction for six residential initiatives.
Cohousing projects as a potential solution to
social challenges
The six case studies are innovative compared to “conventional
housing” (see figures 1 and 2, pp. 236f.), especially in social mat-
ters (Hacke et al. 2018). Self-organisation and collective decision-
making, which even played a role in the 60plus project, brings res-
idents together. As the residents’ survey showed, the opportunity
to participate was a frequent expectation of living in a cohousing
project, which was fulfilled in most cases. Large shares of respon-
dents reported taking on tasks and responsibilities in the projects
(such as caretaker, property management, neighbourhood assis -
tance) and confirmed that the majority of residents also contrib -
ute to the community. For instance, establishing rules for living to -
gether was a matter of course for most respondents. All projects
have created a network of neighbourly relationships and genuine
friendships. Almost all the respondents are in contact with their
housemates in some form or other. Low-threshold help and sup-
port are available in everyday life and take many forms. This was
– regardless of age or family situation when moving in – an im-
portant hope of respondents, which was essentially fulfilled. If
conflicts arise, a common approach is to find a solution together.
Most respondents did not believe that such conflicts – which are
quite frequent – imply the failure of the idea of cohousing.
90 percent of the respondents would move into a cohousing
project again – mainly due to the contacts in the project, followed
by the possibility of active contribution and the feeling of being in
good hands. The most important motives for moving in varied by
age: those younger than 50 wanted to live in a community of like-
minded people; those older wanted to avoid loneliness in old age.
The desire to live together with people with similar attitudes was
a universal motive for living in all the projects considered.
One contribution that cohousing can make in terms of social
as well as economic sustainability is the commitment to keep hous-
ing costs stable and low in the long term compared to the commer-
cial housing market by avoiding speculative profits and market-
level rent increases. The represented cooperatives are guided by
the principle of cost rent, that is, rents are calculated so that they
cover the costs for maintaining the building and forming reserves,
but not to generate profits. In particular, the surveyed tenants were
satisfied with the development of housing costs. In the projects,
a dampening of resale and rental prices compared to the market
depends on the good will of the owner, but the prices of the coop -
erative flats are controlled by the members. In addition, operating
costs were reduced through in-house services. With the exception
of Wilhelmshaven, all projects were characterised by a sharing cul-
ture (see below). >
233_239_Hacke 06.08.19 19:28 Seite 235
GAIA 28/S1(2019): 233– 239
Ulrike Hacke, Kornelia Müller, Elisabeth Dütschke236236 RESEARCH
Wider impacts of cohousing projects
According to the experiences of the housing companies or proj-
ect managers involved, the projects are characterised by very care-
ful handling of the building and low expenses for the caretaker
service. Interviewees reported that residents are sending impuls-
es to the outside world (figure 2) – providing information and ini -
tiating follow-up projects, through volunteer work in the neigh-
bourhood, but also through concrete offers (e.g., cultural events)
to the immediate vicinity. In Munich, the commitment of the group
contributed to the fact that the initially unpopular development ar -
ea became an active and attractive neighbourhood. The high inter -
est of this group in their district is a good example of projects act -
ing as “door openers” to integrate residents. Housing groups can
be more easily addressed due to their self-organisation and often
bring together a “critical mass” of committed people. This includes
the potential for “docking” with other sustainability innovations,
such as energy or water infrastructure systems. The two cases fea-
turing a flat-sharing group of dementia patients or care-depend-
ent persons (Langen and Landau) also show that a combination
with neighbourhood-based facilities is possible, such as a hous-
ing-related outpatient care infrastructure; they also show the pos-
sible pitfalls due to planning errors.
From an ecological point of view, all six projects were built in
an energy-efficient manner, and in some cases they use regenera -
tive energy sources. One project has committed itself to reducing
the number of cars. In most projects, inhabitants share applianc -
es like washing machines, garden tools, drills or other tools, bi-
cycle trailers, and also consumer goods like newspapers.
Diffusion of cohousing projects
In spite of the individual and societal benefits outlined so far, the
number of cohousing projects is
still low, although growing.
Therefore, this section
takes a closer look at the
factors influencing the (faster) diffusion of cohousing projects
in Germany. Within the framework of the analyses, various fac-
tors could be identified that have an inhibiting or a beneficial in-
fluence on the emergence of cohousing. Key issues that housing
projects face include:
finding and fostering a group of interested people,
solving financing issues and, closely related to this, agree-
ing on a legal form appropriate to the group’s objectives
(e. g., cooperative or homeowners’ association),
acquiring a property, and
if applicable, acting as a collective actor.
The challenges are particularly high when rental flats are part of
the concept. Important obstacles to implementation result from
the fact that laypeople have to set up companies and function as
such on the market. When they set out, their organisations have
neither a clear organisational or administrative structure nor eq -
ui ty. The latter must first be collected from members and sup-
porters, which requires considerable confidence-building and
clear perspectives.
Barriers
Establishing an initiative group: Intrinsically motivated people
able to attract, inspire and moderate a group of interested individ -
uals are required at the beginning. Since very few people have ex-
perience with neighbourhood projects, they are often not in peo-
ple’s mind as an option. Thus, the initiators not only have to or -
ga nise the group, but also make efforts in public to present and
promote their cohousing idea as distinct from shared housing
and “communes”.
Vague performance perspective: The long lasting uncertain imple -
mentation horizon is another obstacle. Usually, a suitable object
is not available. Financing and the legal form must be clarified as
well. Generally, the knowledge required is not available to the nec-
essary extent. This lack of know-how hinders confidence building
– both internally and externally – and leads to long periods of un-
certainty. For the considered projects, this phase did not end un-
til the formal cooperation with external consultants or housing
companies – sometimes with consequences for the de-
sired legal form.
Lack of professional partners: In addition, suit-
able cooperation partners were often found
only by chance. A professional consulting
scene with advice on financing and legal is-
sues and project management offers has so
far developed only to a limited extent. There
is a lack of professionally competent advi -
sors especially outside larger towns and ci -
ties. The projects in Heikendorf, but especi -
ally in Langen and Landau, had huge problems
finding the relevant competent advice. Housing
FIGURE 1: Internal
effects of cohousing
projects.
233_239_Hacke 06.08.19 19:28 Seite 236
GAIA 28/S1(2019): 233– 239
Ulrike Hacke, Kornelia Müller, Elisabeth Dütschke 237RESEARCH
housing company in Langen faced the same problem: rents were
not affordable for low-income households. Since the financing
burden was not much lower than in ownership formation, the
share of rented housing in this mixed project decreased signif-
icantly. However, only a few federal states have tailored funding
programmes in place to include low-income households.
Competing for land or housing property: Gaining access to a build -
ing plot is one of the main problems of cohousing projects. In
competition with financially stronger and faster acting investors,
they stand little chance of winning, or fail due to high prices.
The implementation rate of cohousing projects shows little dynam -
ics, due to the problems mentioned. In addition, the projects are
usually not geared towards enlargement or repetition, so that the
hard-earned knowledge and the potential for trust are usually not
passed on. However, there are some indications that politics and
the housing industry are gradually opening up to new ideas. More-
over, in some regions professional, supportive counselling options
and alternative providers have become established. This develop -
ment can be used to derive favourable conditions for the increased
implementation of cohousing projects. There are other pointers
available from alternative development paths taken, for example,
in Denmark (Tornow 2017).
Success factors
Consulting infrastructure: Public start-up financing enabled a con -
sulting infrastructure for cohousing projects to be set up in Ham -
burg and Berlin as well as in the states of North Rhine-Westphalia
and Schleswig-Holstein. Publicly-funded information
centres are also available in some other major cities
and recently in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate.
The tasks include public relations and “lobby -
ing activities” for cohousing projects
to be considered at the political lev-
el and in housing companies. The
existence of a fundamentally in-
terested basis must also be fos-
tered through low-threshold of-
fers (e. g., initial consultation,
information events). Ideally,
cooperation partners will al -
so be recruited and services
provided for the implemen -
ta tion phase (financial and
legal advice, project manage-
ment, structuring of commu -
ni cation). The latter are
paid by the projects
as part of the con-
struction costs.
Promoting the es-
tablishment of such
a municipal or state-level >
FIGURE 2: External effects
of cohousing projects.
companies have little incentive to cooperate with initiatives. The
Langen group started with a long unsuccessful search for a coop -
erating housing company. The Stuttgart cooperative was found-
ed because housing initiatives did not find any partner.
Lack of equity: Without a cooperating housing company to take
over the (pre-)financing of the property, providing sufficient equi -
ty/creditworthiness also represents a major hurdle. This is espe -
cially the case if the group wants to integrate parties with few as-
sets. The formation of community property (e.g., in a cooperative)
may be a solution, because one person’s insufficient equity can
be offset by higher contributions from the others. However, cur-
rently, there are no ways to compensate for the benefits of invest -
ing in individual home ownership and to increase the motivation
to participate in community ownership. New cooperatives often
do not see any possibility of paying off the redemption payments
members have made (which exceed depreciation) until they want
to move out, or of compensating inflation for the capital injected.
In contrast to the gain on the sale of home ownership, such pay-
ments must also be taxed. Therefore, legal forms are often cho-
sen that allow private use of the contributed capital. This is why
only one of the four bottom-up projects (Landau) formed cooper -
ative property; the others combined a cooperative for subsidised
rented housing with private residential property.
Difficult inclusion of low-income households: Due to the credit bur-
den, rents of a young cooperative without subsidies are too high
for low-income members. Therefore in Landau and Heikendorf,
the project members offered some financial benefits for families
by shifting costs internally. The
neighbourhood
233_239_Hacke 06.08.19 19:28 Seite 237
GAIA 28/S1(2019): 233– 239
Ulrike Hacke, Kornelia Müller, Elisabeth Dütschke238238 RESEARCH
advisory infrastructure could be part of a wider, more open con-
sultation, for example for models of retirement living. Without
basic and start-up financing, the threshold to self-supporting
professional counselling offers is usually too high. Greater stan-
dardisation of procedures and the necessary know-how could al -
so help to promote such infrastructure.
Land allocation: Four of the five new construction projects (Lan-
dau, Heikendorf, Stuttgart, Munich) received municipal support
in the search for land. The fifth group (Langen) was able to acquire
a church-owned property after a lengthy search.
In Hamburg and Munich, all urban development projects re-
serve a share of the available building land area for communities
and cooperatives and allocate the land according to criteria-based
award procedures (“concept”) at the market value or a politically
determined price. The concept also determines the rental mix to
be achieved (e.g., proportion of subsidised flats). If real estate is
principally allocated according to concept in tight markets, tradi -
tional investors will also comply with. The allocation of land asso -
ciated with a concept thus promotes urban development geared
to urban needs and, cohousing projects are part of this.
Part of a forward-looking property policy would be municipal
authorities purchasing land to have “in stock” and granting lease-
hold rights instead of selling it. Increasingly tight municipal budg-
ets and the debt relief policy of German states have led to this path
becoming increasingly difficult for municipalities to take.
State and municipal funded housing promotion: Residential devel -
opment programmes suitable for housing projects exist in the
states of Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein, North Rhine-Westphalia
and the city of Munich. Of particular importance are support paths
with income limits above those of the Housing Support Act. In Ham -
burg and Munich, this is done through a housing subsidy with
different income limits and land allocation at reduced prices. In
return, there is a long-term ban on privatisation and a binding rent -
al price or reduced prices without income limits, but with specif -
ications for flat and household sizes and long occupancy commit-
ments with regard to privatisation and rental prices. Without sup -
port, access for middle-income households is often difficult, and
home ownership is more attractive for higher-income households,
especially for younger households. Channelling funds from wealthy
interested parties into cooperative projects (e. g., by supporting
the acquisition of cooperative shares) would facilitate the imple-
mentation of socially mixed rental projects. Very beneficial would
be cheap loans with low repayment instalments, such as those
offered in Switzerland by central financing institutions to non-
profit housing developers. In the case studies examined, price re-
ductions (also for flats without income limits) offered by the city
played an important role in Munich and Stuttgart.
Cooperation with traditional housing companies: Private landlords
are the main suppliers of dwellings in Germany. Just one third of
the whole housing stock is hold (by nearly equal shares) by private
professional companies, public companies and cooperatives. The
two latter ones – together with a small stock hold by the catholic
and the protestant churches – are the desirable partners for co-
housing initiatives as social corporate responsibility and a lower
profit margin allow for such a not-for-profit cooperation. But co-
housing project initiatives challenge housing companies with un-
familiar demands and communication requirements that are not
matched by any clear benefits. The project groups are often weak -
ly formalised and companies are not focused on user participation.
Regularly cooperating companies with experience in planning par-
ticipation such as the company in Langen are an exception, and
even this required a stable group structure as a starting point. The
availability of consultants who act as “interpreters”, qualify the
group for cooperation, structure communication and thus reduce
the burden on the company can contribute to the opening up of
traditional companies. Establishing allocation criteria for land that
favour companies providing rental housing for cohousing proj-
ects serves as further incentive, as consultants report from Ham-
burg and Munich. Such boundary conditions are more likely to
exist in the major cities.
Supporting organisations: Instead of cooperating with housing
companies, forming their own organisations seems to be the more
promising route for cohousing projects in Germany. They offer
greater opportunities to cultivate participation forms in the long
term and to influence rent development. Since the 1980s, a num-
ber of so-called umbrella cooperatives have been set up, which pro -
vide project initiatives with a legal and administrative framework,
contribute to trust building and sometimes accompany them pro -
fessionally during the phase of implementation. Entrepreneurial
umbrella cooperatives – which are able to expand on their own in -
itiative and can also provide the necessary pre-financing – have so
far only developed in the Munich area. One of them was one of our
case studies. Even if they do not build for nonmembers, they con-
tribute to the dissemination of the cohousing idea by offering their
residents shared spaces and “a voice” at house and cooperative lev-
el, and by promoting neighbourhood activities. In addition, there
are improved chances of success for a management approach that
uses asset accumulation to support further projects. It remains un-
clear how such forward-looking companies could be established
on a larger scale. Committed actors have to make a living from
their work in a foreseeable future and, if possible, cooperate with
capital-intensive institutions during the initiation phase.
Outlook
The analysed projects have developed forms of participation that
can be adapted to changing needs and create a social network for
their residents with many opportunities for contact. Often they in-
clude highly dedicated members who join activities in the neigh-
bourhood, thus contributing to a supportive environment especi -
ally for families and seniors. This is even more important in the
context of demographic change. The self-organisation of the proj -
ects also increases the opportunities for a reduction in resource
233_239_Hacke 06.08.19 19:28 Seite 238
GAIA 28/S1(2019): 233– 239
Ulrike Hacke, Kornelia Müller, Elisabeth Dütschke 239RESEARCH
Fallbeispiele im TransNIK-Handlungsfeld Bauen & Wohnen. www.transnik.de/
transnik-wAssets/docs/TransNIK_Werkstattbericht_Nr_2_Fallauswahl_
Wohnen_IWU.pdf (accessed November 14, 2018).
Hacke, U. et al. 2018. Faktoren der Entstehung gemeinschaftlicher Wohnprojekte.
Eine Analyse von sechs Fallbeispielen auf Basis der Multi-Level-Perspektive.
www.transnik.de/transnik-wAssets/docs/Fallstudienbericht_Wohnen_
final_korr_Mai_2018.pdf (accessed November 14, 2018).
Häußermann, H. 2009. Zur Notwendigkeit neuer Wohnformen. Gemein-
schaftliche Bedürfnisse der individualisierten Gesellschaft. In: morgen:
wohnen! Neue Wohnformen. Edited by Bund Deutscher Architekten.
Berlin. 12–19.
Hallenberg, B. 2017. Wohnen im Alter und die Veränderung von Lebensstilen
und Lebenswelten. In: Altersgerecht wohnen und leben im Quartier.
Edited by H. Sinning. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB. 29– 50.
Hugentobler, M., U. Otto. 2017. Gemeinschaftliche Wohnformen für die
zweite Lebenshälfte. Qualitäten im Kanton Zürich. In: Altersgerecht wohnen
und leben im Quartier. Edited by H. Sinning. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB.
135 – 162 .
Müller, K. et al. 2017. Wie weiter auf dem Weg zu mehr gemeinschaftsorientiertem
Wohnen? www.transnik.de/transnik-wAssets/docs/TransNIK_
Werkstattbericht_Nr_3_Output_Praxispartner_WS_IWU.pdf
(accessed November 14, 2018).
Schubert, H. J.1990. Private Hilfenetze. Solidaritätspotentiale von Verwandtschaft,
Nachbarschaft und Freundschaft. Ergebnisse einer egozentrierten Netzwerk-
analyse. Materialien des Instituts für Entwicklungsplanung und
Strukturforschung 145. Hannover: Institut für Entwicklungsplanung
und Strukturforschung.
Statistisches Bundesamt. 2015. Statistisches Jahrbuch Deutschland und
Internationales 2015. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
Statistisches Bundesamt. 2016. Statistisches Jahrbuch Deutschland und
Internationales 2016. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
Tornow, B. 2017. Zur Entwicklung gemeinschaftlichen Wohnens in Dänemark.
www.transnik.de/transnik-wAssets/docs/TransNIK_Werkstattbericht_
Nr_7_Daenemark_WS_IWU.pdf (accessed November 14, 2018).
Wohnbund (Ed.) 2015. Europa. Gemeinsam Wohnen. Berlin: Jovis.
consumption through sharing facilities and objects as well as for
the use of ecological innovations (e.g., mobility concepts). Proj-
ects with housing for renters and a corresponding legal form (e.g.,
cooperative) also make a contribution to rent reduction and social
mixing.
However, cohousing projects often have to survive a long search
and development process – there is a shortage of equity, know-how
and “entrepreneurial” persons. As long as every new project in
some ways needs to be “newly” invented the innovation will not
spread. Due to their structurally related problems, the projects are
dependent on compensation for these disadvantages through pub-
lic support and nonprofit housing investors like existing larger
housing cooperatives or residential property developers with a
public mandate. A dissemination of basic principles of cohous-
ing is promoted by housing companies such as Wogeno eG Mu-
nich which offers its residents planning participation, common
areas and self-administration elements. Public awareness and ac -
ceptance are increased by successful flagship projects. If they are
in line with public policy objectives (e.g., affordable housing, neigh-
bourhood spaces) they can also gain political attention and sup-
port for cohousing. Promising public support strategies include
means of funding, land allocation and assistance for empowering
during the planning, financing and construction process. Such
support could be part of an urban development strategy that com-
bines housing with environmental goals and the strengthening of
social networks.
We thank the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
for the financial support of the TransNIK project within the Social-Ecological
Research (SOEF) funding priority of the BMBF and the SOEF funding measure
Sustainable Economy.
References
Baumann, A. et al. 2018. Zusammenleben in gemeinschaftlichen Wohnprojekten.
Ergebnisse einer Bewohnerbefragung in sechs Fallbeispielen. www.transnik.de/
transnik-wAssets/docs/TransNIK_Werkstattbericht_Nr_10_
Bewohnerbefragung_IWU.pdf. (accessed November 14, 2018).
BBSR (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung). 2012.
BBSR- Immobilienmarktbeobachtung. www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/
WohnenImmobilien/Immobilienmarktbeobachtung/ProjekteFachbeitraege/
MietenPreise/Mieten/Mieten.html (accessed November 14, 2018).
Brech, J. 1999. Ein Wandel im Wohnen in der Zeit des Umbruchs. Eine Studie
zu Neuen Wohnformen. In: Neue Wohnformen im internationalen Vergleich.
Edited by Wüstenrot Stiftung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 81–160.
Dütschke, E. et al. 2019. Moving towards sustainability: Insights from district
heating, water systems and communal housing projects in local commu-
nities. Paper presented at the eceee 2019 Summer Study “Energy efficiency
first, but what next?”. Belambra Presqu’île de Giens, France, June 3– 8.
Friedrichs, J. 1995. Stadtsoziologie. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Ginski, S. et al. 2012. IBA Berlin 2020. Kurzüberblick/Projektrecherche
“Besondere Wohnformen”. digital.zlb.de/viewer/rest/image/15655306/
pt_materialien_ 30.pdf/full/max/0/pt_materialien_30.pdf
(accessed November 14, 2018).
Goebel, J. et al. 2015. Einkommensungleichheit in Deutschland bleibt
weiterhin hoch – junge Alleinlebende und Berufseinsteiger sind
zunehmend von Armut bedroht. DIW Wochenbericht 82/25: 571–586.
Hacke, U. et al. 2017. Gemeinschaftliche Wohnprojekte für Ältere. Aspekte von
Rechts- und Finanzierungsformen und weitere Kriterien für die Auswahl der
Elisabeth Dütschke
Studies in psychology, business administration and marketing.
PhD in social sciences. Since 2009 senior scientist at Fraun-
hofer Institute for System and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe,
Germany, since 2019 head of the business unit Actors and Ac-
ceptance in the Transformation of the Energy System.Research
interests: technology and innovation acceptance and societal
transitions.
Ulrike Hacke
Studies in sociology and psychology. Since 2000 senior re -
search er at the Institute for Housing and Environment (Insti -
tut Wohnen und Umwelt, IWU) Darmstadt, Germany. Research
interests: socio-scientific energy and housing research.
Kornelia Müller
Clerk at the Institute for Housing and Environment (Institut
Wohnen und Umwelt, IWU) Darmstadt, Germany. Since 1998
member of the board of WohnSinn eG, a cooperative with two
intergenerational neighbourhood projects (others in planning).
233_239_Hacke 06.08.19 19:28 Seite 239
