1. Saving by Sharing
Collective Housing for Sustainable Lifestyles
by Prof. Emer. Dick Urban Vestbro, KTH, Stockholm; March2010
Presentation based on
• Research on cohousing 1964 - today
• Teaching of house planning and design
• Experience as an activist, chairman of
Swedish association Cohousing NOW

2. Concepts and Aims
Concepts Aims
Cohousing (Durrett & McCa- • Simplify everyday life, esp.
mant, based on DK exp.) to combine family life and
Collaborative housing job (gender equality)
(Fromm) • Demand for moderate
Collective housing (incl. servi- sense of community
ces through employed staff) • Access to common spaces
Communes (without individual and facilities such as guest
apartments) rooms, club rooms , work-
Intentional Communities shops , tools etc
• Promote sustainable
(Eco-villages)
(Cooperative housing)
lifestyles

3. Historical development of
communal living ideas
Cohousing
Smaller communities
Oneida Communes
Shakers Eco-villages
Kibbutzim Bofælleskab Self-work
(DK) model
Robert Owen (GB) Collective
Charles Fourier (F) housing 2nd half
Godin’s fami- (Sovjet) of life m.
listère (F) Apartment
hotels (USA) Senior
Collective Service housing
Central kit-
housing (SE) housing
chen h.
Family hotels (elderly)
1800 1900 2000
Blue = rational society; Red = ideal life; Green = ecological or other goals

4. How much can be
saved by sharing?
• 15 households abstaining 10%
of normal private space allows
access to 120 sqm common
space
• 40 households abstaining 10%
of normal private space allows
access to 320 sqm common
space
• Access to common spaces may
motivate fewer private rooms
• Possible to share cars, expen-
sive tools, workshops, compost,
newspaper subscriptions,
library etc.

5. The Stolplyckan model, Linköping
• 184 apartments, divided
into staircase units
• 10% reduction of apts
• 2000 sqm common spaces
• Municipal service as a base
(care of children, elderly)
• Own cooking in evenings

6. Collective housing - for sustainable lifestyles
The ’commons’ dilemma’: as an individual
it feels meaningless to do something for the
environment, but as a collective it may be
enjoyable and meaningful
In collective housing one may share news
paper subscriptions, expensive tools, guest
rooms, laser writers, books, children’s clothes,
toys etc.
Cultivation, Prästgårdshagen
Alotments gardens, Fristad
Composting, Phagen Ecological food, Tullstugan

7. Things residents can do together
Breakfast club, study circle, parents’ café, culti-
vation, subscription to papers, kate flying, disco,
mascerade, karaoke, children’s parties, movies,
playing games, art work, music, photo, carpen-
try, ceramics, badminton, indoor bandy, sauna,
weaving, composting, pancake parties, billard,
flea markets, barbecues, repair sessions, book
Oiling furniture, Tullstugan clubs, poetry evening, excursions.
Carpentry, Phagen
Textile work, Fristad Weaving, Fristad Cleaning stairs, Phagen

8. Which categories prefer collective living?
Earlier: well educated people
born in the 1940s, working in pub-
lic sector, women, families with
children, ’postmaterialists’
Today: as above but more mixed,
not as ideological, single mothers,
elderly. Anti-consumerists? Sign board reflects alternative
movement ideas
Resident meeting, Prästgårdshagen, Stockholm
Garden party, Blenda, Uppsala

9. Individualism replacing kinship
ties and need for company?
• 75% one& two person households today
• Increase of small households continues
• Does individualism help people to live alone?
• Do people get enough company from work, associations,
eating out, visiting friends?
“Household explosion”
Living alone reduces
health and wellbeing

10. Theory of gender and communal space
From “The New Everyday Life - ways and means”, 1991 & Oscar Newman: ’Defensible Space’ 1974
Patriarchal view: separate Female view: local quali-
functions, big gestures, ties, human scale inte-
abstract forms grated functions
In-between level
- Local tasks
- Local organisation
- Local economy
Private cells + monumen- Semiprivate & communal spaces for local social life &
tal public places crime prevention