Strategies for reducing costs in the development of cohousing in the United States and Canada

The CoHousing movement was formed in Denmark in the late 1960's, and has since become established in Scandinavia, central Europe, Australia, and North America. Through collective development and management of pedestrian-oriented housing with shared facilities that supplement individual dwellings, CoHousing fosters the sense of community lacking in other housing options. This increased contact and interaction with neighbors is seen to be particularly beneficial to two of the fastest growing household types--single parents and the elderly. CoHousing units are typically not affordable to a large proportion of these and other groups, however, and thus have tended to be an option primarily reserved for double-income professional households.This paper explores the potential for reducing unit prices in the United States and Canada by identifying and examining five key stages of the CoHousing development process: group formation; development structure; site selection; financing and ownership; and planning, design, and construction. Research was guided by: visits to eight of the thirteen completed CoHousing projects in Canada and the United States; guided interviews with CoHousing developers, architects, builders, and residents; examination of financial proforma and construction drawings; and comparison of CoHousing development procedures with conventional affordable housing development procedures.Results of the study show that while cost-saving strategies in general are more frequently employed than initially anticipated, many are often under-utilized or ineffectively employed. Foremost among the strategies which are infrequently or ineffectively employed are: hiring professional consultants from within the group; selecting sites targeted for redevelopment subsidies; utilizing infill housing strategies; increasing the degree of unit standardization; and increased use of sweat equity in the development of common facilities. The extent to which the measurement of a strategy's effectiveness can be transferred (from one project to another) is limited by the unique location, size, development history, and small number of completed projects. (Abstract shortened by UMI.