Collaborative Housing: Resident and Professional Roles

Abstract

self-commission, self-procure and self-manage housing clusters lack the experience and expertise required to negotiate the complex procedures that housing provision involves. They also face resistance from mainstream development partners such as designers, engineers, officials, housing associations, and financiers, who frequently perceive such projects as complex, risky, and complicated. In response, new professional roles are emerging to guide groups through development and building procedures. This frequently requires existing professional infrastructures to adapt; to revise structures for decision-making, to reconsider typical contracting procedures, and to reassess the valuing of professional services. So far, very few studies have researched how the (re-)emergence and growth of selforganized housing initiatives impacts the roles of built environment professionals and professions. This issue of Built Environment addresses questions into the professionalism and role of professionals in the development of resident-led housing. Architects such as Walter Segal, N. John Habraken, and Christopher Alexander have previously pointed to opportunities to develop design models and strategies that enable residents’ appropriation of (dwelling)space and of the production of space. The contributions to this issue are similarly interested in realizing systemic change beyond the level of individual projects and to show, once more, that designers are not the only professional category involved in creating innovative housing models. Writing from experiences in multiple jurisdictions, most authors zoom in on the proNew forms of self-organized housing are emerging in numerous locations around the globe. This is particularly the case where regulated housing markets and state-provision for vulnerable households are aff ected by budget cuts and urban speculation, leaving the middle class at the urban periphery. Residents who join forces collectively to realize housing for their own use are known by terms as diverse as ‘building groups’ (Germany), ‘collective custom build’ (United Kingdom), ‘deliberative development’ (Australia) and ‘cohousing’. ‘Collaborative housing’ has become an umbrella term for this housing sector. Self-organized housing initiatives can address systemic contemporary issues such as housing (un)affordability, social isolation, care for the ageing, active and safe urban environments for children, environmental and community resilience, and climate change. The built results often receive recognition for their architectural quality, reduced costs, and sustainable outcomes. As such, there is interest from local authorities to integrate collective selforganized housing in urban policies and planning procedures. This involves a shift in the institutional framework, moving away from perceiving residents as individual ‘clients’ or ‘beneficiaries’ towards acknowledging future residents as proactive and collective clients. Households engaging in self-organization frequently seek to realize housing which diverges in some ways from that provided by the market. However, their planning, construction and development inevitably take place in the context of mainstream housing production and the regional planning system. For the most part, households setting out to Collaborative Housing: Resident and Professional Roles