A search of the Internet will uncover a mix of articles declaring that co-housing is much more expensive than regular housing and an equal amount of articles that espouse the inexpensive nature of cohousing. How can it be both?

Further Reading: Five Reasons Urban Cohousing Isn’t More Affordable

Further Reading: Partnerships for Affordable Co-Housing

Diverse ownership and building styles

Cohousing includes a broad spectrum of housing styles and ownership models, with some involving options that are not cost efficient. At the same time, others have comprehensive, perhaps overreaching commune-styled operations that allow for little autonomy and even privacy. This diverse mix means many complexes are more expensive than freestanding or condominium housing options, even though the amenities and services provided may be broader than condo living.

Further Reading: Cohousing: What is it and what is the appeal?

It often is the amenities and services that add significantly to the cost, with both infrastructure and operations contributing to this overrun. Many systems follow the commune type of living from the 1970s, rather than building flexibility into the design and day-to-day management. Where the mix of units included are eclectic, ownership/rental models flexible and support services and benefits optional, the costs can be reduced significantly, so that individual units are much more inexpensive than comparable freestanding units, while providing an array of support and features.

Further Reading: Co-housing Communities: What they are and considerations to make

Rural co-housing advantages

Rural communities tend to be much better suited to this type of co-housing than large urban centres, because of the price of property and the community-driven, cooperative nature of residents.

Features and Amenities of Great Cohousing

There are several features that need to be included in any cohousing design: common spaces, growth opportunity, flexible ownership, shared infrastructure, equivalency and controlled common fees.

Common Spaces

Common spaces include common open space and outdoor areas, including garden space. They also include recreation, leisure and exercise facilities, sometimes incorporating a pool. These spaces may be provided by others in the community, such as the local recreation centre. Other common area spaces are meeting rooms, kitchen and dining facilities. If the community lacks these facilities, the cohousing project has an opportunity to generate revenue by providing general access to the facilities.

Even with common spaces like gardens and kitchen/dining facilities, most of the units (but not all) in the complex will be self-sufficient, with complete or partial kitchens, private balcony or patio and a garden space. Residents may opt in or out of various programs (such as meal programs), with few limitations.

Growth Opportunity

Tenants should be able to aim for purchase of units if they wish, others may want to upgrade to larger or better facilities within the complex, cooperative elements should be able to offer expansion opportunity to members and owners should be able to improve their properties, with limitations.

Flexible Ownership

The initial design may include rentals (low and moderate), condo-style units, cooperative developments, low-, middle- and upper-level accommodations, and units of varying sizes and fetures. Within that eclectic mix, renters may become owners, shared ownership, condo, lease and rent premises may exist, offering units to a wide base of clients with a shared community interest.

Shared Infrastructure

Shared water and sewer system, solar & green energy utilities, common roadway and parking and other infrastructure reduces per-unit costs. Designs should encourage optimal use of space, with roadways only on the perimeter of the complex and common spaces to the inside. This shared infrastructure is maintained by the complex at large, distributing costs among residents uniformly.

Equivalency

In a closed community, it is important to have a sense of balance and fairness, yet it should not be expected that everyone will be equal. That is one of the failings of low-income projects across North America: no incentive to improve and a sense that one should not be better than or given an advantage over another. Yet, people are not equal. They are different, and may be equivalent with varied strengths and frailties.

The opportunity to move up or down, the opportunity to opt in and out of programs, the opportunity to have access to all the amenities and the opportunity to input into decision-making for the complex all contribute to a sense of equivalency.

Controlled common fees

One of the major complaints and failings of many cohousing systems is the requirement that members all be part of all of the offerings, including meals. Properly designed, this is unnecessary. Often, the resident management board is not held accountable for costs and often impose their will on the community, with a spiral of escalating costs resulting. A contract that operates much like a condo board contract will help to alleviate that tendency to overspend.

Similarly, requiring that all units conform to an expected standard appearance can place a burden on common costs. Cohousing does not have to and should not look the same for every unit. Cohousing is a collection, not a commune, and diversity attracts diverse owners and tenants.