According to Elena Pereyra of Co-housing Australia, co-housing differs significantly from other community housing models in that future occupant participation throughout the project lifecycle is non-negotiable.
One of co-housing’s flagship projects is Murundaka, an all-rental housing cooperative in the northern Melbourne suburb of Heidelberg. Established in 2011, the co-op includes 20 households across one, two and four-bedroom apartments.
It also has extensive shared spaces, including a common house that’s open to the broader local community for meetings and events held by groups such as choirs, parent groups and grassroots organisations.
It’s owned by Common Equity Housing Limited, a specialist cooperative housing organisation that manages more than 2000 properties across Victoria, involving over 90 individual housing cooperatives.
A registered charity and member of Community Housing Industry Association Victoria, it both develops new properties – with 25 under construction as of the 2023-24 financial year – and purchases properties which are then upgraded for sustainability performance and liveability. The 2024 annual report shows a portfolio of $1.2 billion in assets and operating revenue of nearly $25 million for the year.
According to Pereyra, co-chair of Cohousing Australia, the success of Murundaka as a housing solution helped lead the local council, City of Banyule, to include the model in its new housing strategy for the municipality. These developments will be given an exemption from the developer contributions levied by council, in recognition of the fact that they provide a level of community amenity within the design and also deliver affordable housing.
She says that co-housing differs from other housing models such as multiple occupancy, market strata, commercial build to rent (BTR) and standard urban infill estates, in that future residents participate in the design, delivery and post-occupancy management and governance.
By contrast, projects by affordable housing focussed groups are designed and led by architects, developers, government or community housing groups. Some of these include elements of the co-housing approach, such as consultation in design or control over community operations.
Co-living is also a different model. BTR for example, is a form of co-living, where the building has shared facilities and amenities.
Much of the recent private sector purpose-built student accommodation is also a co-living proposition.
Some of these make the shared spaces “as mean as possible and restrict the equipment, so they reduce the time people spend together, to reduce the risk of conflict or friction. Sadly, they are not designed around a sense of sharing and a culture of conviviality.”
It can be a big contrast to the upmarket models of BTR where luxury facilities are often a key feature.
Designing for connection (or not) in multi-residential projects
It’s not easy to architecturally create community in multi-residential projects if there are “dark corners” and no passive surveillance of shared areas, as this reduces the sense of personal safety.
Pereyra says that in developer-led projects, the design of buildings may be anti-social and inhospitable, making it difficult for residents to develop a sense of community.
“Many are not designed for people to spend additional time in common areas, for example, where there are lightless corridors between dwellings.
“In co-housing, people want to build community and build adaptive resilience, and they design for that.”
Benefits and challenges
Frequently, co-housing will include a common house space or building that has shared cooking and dining facilities. Many also include shared laundries, activity spaces, productive gardens, DIY workshops, and may even extend the sharing to bulk food purchasing and vehicles. Co-housing also enables residents to contribute to the ongoing upkeep and management of the property.
“Community-led housing can catalyse larger systemic benefit, enabling agency and participation, creating a keen sense of collective responsibility along with the capacity to create sophisticated networks,” Pereyra says.
“Housing is fundamental to wellbeing and creating affordable and connected housing the bedrock of a fulfilling life and dynamic social culture. Skills learnt through community-led housing are applicable in personal relationships, workplaces, volunteer roles, and governance contexts.”
This typology does face challenges, including barriers around local government planning rules that limit the types of development permitted within specific suburbs. There can also be difficulties in obtaining development finance from banks.
This results in many projects compromising on the “pure” model or on their design and sustainability aspirations. This might mean altering the size of dwellings or buildings.
Valuers are missing the value
Unfortunately, not every council is amenable to the model. Pereyra is part of a group currently looking to develop a co-housing project which has had challenges finding a site. She explains
Apartments are built near other existing apartments “and not where we need new medium density in middle ring suburbia,” Pereyra explains
that the bank or lender council relies on feedback from a valuer, and valuers need to be able to benchmark proposals against comparable developments in the vicinity.
She says banks won’t lend for apartments where there was no demonstration of return on investment for a similar product in the area.
This means apartments are built near other existing apartments “and not where we need new medium density in middle ring suburbia,” Pereyra explains.
As no new medium density housing had been created in the group’s target suburb in recent decades, a valuer was not able to put a price tag on the proposal and lenders turned the group down.
More broadly, valuers are not always able to put a solid figure on the worth of shared spaces such as laundries, common houses, gardens and workshops. These can instead be seen as liabilities in terms of being “non-sellable” areas that may result in increasing costs for the owner corporation.
What they can put a value on is the style of amenity found in upmarket BTR and multi-residential projects, including cinema rooms, gyms, pools, yoga rooms, working areas and catering kitchens. These lifestyle spaces look great in marketing brochures, but Pereyra observes they are often managed in a way that excludes people. Children, for example, are not generally able to use many of these facilities, and booking systems often mean that when one person or household books a space it’s booked out for the whole building. These types of systems don’t encourage people to come together.
The sense of community is one of the aspects of co-housing that attracts people, according to Pereyra.
“People see the value of knowing their neighbours, and the mutual care. Having someone there to help. They also want to live in more sustainable housing. The current market is mostly not sustainable housing, and at worst, current housing is not even built well.
“When future residents codesign multi-res developments they prioritise lifecycle cost benefits, investing more upfront for more efficient and long-lasting solutions over the life of the project.”
When housing makes people strangers to each other, it also erodes community safety. Pereyra notes that in some strata communities, for example, it may be difficult to plan for disaster resilience because the strata manager and owners corporation may not have a full list of residents and occupiers if some of the dwellings are rentals.
Creating a human ecosystem
People also want to be able to grow food, manage water and have native plants in the landscape, Pereyra says.
Co-housing offers residents the chance to “live their best life” without needing to own all the equipment that enables it such as a lawn mower, sewing machine, ironing board, cargo bikes, laundry white goods and workshop tools. This adds to the affordability dimension – not needing to buy all the paraphernalia that goes with contemporary life.
There are also “nested benefits” in having engaged people in a local community, Pereyra says. Co-housing residents that are invested in their neighbourhood bring helping hands to local events and community gardens, increased activity in local parks, and a solid stakeholder group to advocate to council for improving community facilities.
“Co-housing builds social capital and investment in place.”