This article approaches post-war housing innovation in the Netherlands from a feminist perspective, shedding light on the hitherto unkown roles played by women architects. It introduces the work of Dutch women architects, some of it acknowledged at the time of its creation, some completely unknown. First, Augustine Schreuder-Gratama, one of the first female students in Delft in the 1920s, and the Women Advisory Committee (VAC) for social housing ―specifically their role as model homes exhibitions developers in the context of housing industrialisation in the 1950s, in which other organizations have been considered pioneer. Then work of Luzia Hartsuyker-Curjel from the democratization period including the second feminist wave in the 1970s and 1980s is presented. Amongst others, she proposed a ‘non-hierarchical dwelling’ based on feminist critique of the nuclear family home. Finally, the article presents the work of Ineke Hulshof in the 1990s and early 21st century ―against a background of neo-liberalism she developed projects for affordable, sustainable housing and new architectural tools to design and co-create with residents’ groups. To conclude, this article argues that their contribution to the evolution of architecture in the Netherlands is underestimated and their role in housing innovation should be better articulated as part of the architectural records.@en

Contribution to the special issue "Urban and regional spaces".@en

This chapter offers a critical reflection on the implementation of gender-aware urbanism in European cities and regions. Building on the evaluations of local projects (such as, for example, Schröder and Zibell, 2004), we look into the frictions in urbanism’s response to gender mainstreaming and identify controversies and ambiguities that arise. In doing so, we aim to overcome the difficulties these controversies produce and to advance thinking about the structural embedding of GM and long-term effective spatial strategies. In this chapter we first introduce the background for our analyses and different perspectives on the production of space; then we present the types of controversies our research has found, and finally we discuss key elements to overcome possible deadlocks and move towards innovating planning practice based on feminist principles.@en

Co-housing has re-emerged in affluent cities as a model of dwelling that aims to reduce ecological impact and increase social welfare. Although it is the subject of growing academic interest, there are significant gaps in knowledge and a tendency toward wishful thinking about its promise that is not supported by evidence. We examine co-housing from a feminist political ecology perspective with the aim of contributing to an improved research agenda, not just on co-housing but commoning more widely. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork conducted at co-housing projects in the Netherlands and the UK, we cast new light on how to assess the impact of sharing practices at the level of the collectivized household. Our findings support the claim that commons thinking is not really commons if it takes the work of social reproduction (caring labour) for granted or overlooks differences between people along the lines of gender, class, race/ethnicity, age and ability. We argue that greater attention to difference entails a new set of questions and criteria, and that these are necessary for assessing the extent to which co-housing projects enable the ‘inclusive commoning’ that their proponents rather wishfully envisage. @en

New forms of self-organised housing are emerging in numerous locations around the globe, particularly in locations where regulated housing markets and state-provision for vulnerable households are affected by budget cuts and urban speculation, leaving the middle class at the urban periphery. Residents who join forces to act collectively to implement housing for their own use are known by terms as diverse as ‘building groups’ (Germany), ‘collective custom build’ (United Kingdom), ‘deliberative development’ (Australia) and ‘co-housing.’ ‘Collaborative housing’ has become an umbrella term for this housing sector. @en

Dutch policies aiming to give future residents more influence and promote homeownership do not seem to achieve targets. However, the statistics do not do justice to emerging ‘hybrid’ forms of resident-led and collaborative housing@en

ver bouwen in eigen beheer wordt verschillend gedacht. Enerzijds worden co-huisvestingsinitiatieven verwelkomd als pioniers in gebiedsontwikkeling, anderzijds wordt gevreesd voor het ‘gated community’ effect. Maar hoe duurzaam is bouwen in eigen beheer? Zijn bewoners voorlopers of dwarsliggers als het om milieumaatregelen gaat? Welke effecten heeft bouwen in eigen beheer op de haalbaarheid van klimaatdoelstellingen? De mogelijkheden zijn veelzijdig, en vooral onderbenut, zo blijkt uit het proefschrift 'Learning from co-housing initiatives — Between Passivhaus engineers and active inhabitants' van Lidewij Tummers naar vier generaties projecten in Nederland en omringende landen.@en

Residents are often the driving forces behind the application of low-impact building materials and low-energy utilities, based on an integrated understanding of sustainability as well as self-interest: costs of housing are calculated in the projects as a sum of rent/purchase per m2; energy costs and typical co-housing costs for example for shared spaces. In this way, resident-led design or co-creation leads to sustainable and demand-driven housing qualities at similar or lower costs than mainstream, institutionally steered and standardised design. This paper analyses the strategies and design of the Geneva based housing cooperative Equilibre@en

Co-housing initiatives are currently on the rise in most European countries. CohousingCo-housing advocates inclusiveness and sustainability and points the way to new models of design as well as of co-creation processes. This contribution explores the spatial criteria used to match the co-housing ideals, and compares Dutch and Swiss co-housing practices. The Netherlands can be seen as an early pioneer of co-housing and Switzerland as forerunner in the field of housing cooperatives. In both countries, grass-root initiatives are increasingly recognised as important urban development partnerpartners. The case-studies show that this can lead to high-quality housing, particularly when institutions, professionals and residents operate on the same key-values. Collaboration is also essential to transfer the experiences to mainstream housing. @en

Mapping the knowledge transfer between feminist planning practice and gender-studies in NL. Pre-research for a project on cultural heritage with National Architecture Archive NL.@en

Gender Mainstreaming addresses the relations between different genders, aiming to reduce inequalities and create equal opportunities. However in urbanism practice, ‘gender mainstreaming’ is often understood as ‘treating women as specific target group’. For a successful implementation of equal opportunity policies, urbanists need to have a clear understanding of gender mainstreaming. Pilots programs and publications of gender-aware approaches are circulating since the 1980s. However, in the current practice of urbanism, the understanding of ‘gender’ has not advanced structurally, and Gender Mainstreaming still creates much resistance. With the aim to look for ways out of this deadlock, this contribution analyses several types of contradictions inherent to the tension between gender as a theoretical concept and a category for urbanism practice. @en

Co-housing implies a double shift in roles : first, energy consumers also becoming producers, second, breaking with household stereotypes and gender roles in sharing and exchanging domestic tasks. The chapter argues that for adequate response to climate change, both need to be taken into account to overcome technocratic approaches and design effective mitigation strategies.@en

The pressures of climate change, energy transition, the financial crisis and retreating governments, call for a reintroduction of the subsurface into spatial planning. Most urban technological infrastructure, including load-bearing capacity, heat and water, is located in the subsurface. It stores water, plays a role in cooling the city and provides geothermal heat as renewable energy. Yet the subsurface is insufficiently recognised as part of the solution in tackling the current challenges. This paper compares the level of integration of subsurface management in Dutch, Swedish and Flemish (Belgium) planning systems. The criteria for the comparison of the planning systems are based on the format developed in COMMIN, a transnational project within the Baltic Sea Region INTERREG III programme. To establish the guiding principles for spatial planning applicable in all three countries, the principal institutions, legal frameworks and planning documents are studied. These are analysed and connected to subsurface management aspects. The analysis of the main differences and overlaps between the planning systems of the three countries forms the starting point for an approach that integrates subsurface decision making into spatial planning. The conclusions argue that, rather than new regulations, a culture change in planning culture is the key to successful integration of the subsurface.@en

Following the UN world summits on Climate Change (Paris 2015) and Habitat (Quito 2016), most European cities assume an active role to implement internationally agreed goals related to climate change, translated in the so-called New Urban Agenda. At the same time, the urban housing market is increasingly inaccessible for low- and middle-income households. To overcome problems such as failing housing supply and high energy-bills, groups of residents take initiatives to create and manage housing projects collectively; these initiatives are further indicated as ‘co-housing’. The aim of this study is to create deeper understanding of the current rise of co-housing in Europe, and what it could mean in urban policies addressing energy transition and climate change. There are two domains where co-housing can become an important asset for urban development: design and maintenance of (semi-)public space for climate change mitigation, and the transition to a circular metabolism in housing. Based on empirical data, this thesis concludes that co-housing projects present relevant models and approaches for reducing the energy consumption and for integrating renewable energies in the general housing stock. Engineers can learn from co-housing pioneers to advance the targets for energy-transition and further develop sustainable cities. The thesis contributes to the emerging body of knowledge with a new understanding of co-housing, analysing its ‘key-features’ with an interdisciplinary framework, in a European context. It adds a new perspective to existing co-housing research, which is dominated by social sciences, by drawing attention to the physical characteristics of co-housing, produced in architectural, planning and engineering processes (the technosphere). The choices made during design and building are not only shaped by the residents’ aims and perception of sustainability, but also influenced by technosphere-related institutions, such as the building-components industry, energy or waste networks and providers, and planning regulations. The professional partners for the projects, such as housing associations and engineers, are equally affected by the institutional context, but their position is different from that of residents. They may for example be more anchored in governmental or professional regulations.@en

This research looks at two developments in contemporary Europe: on the one hand the transition towards renewable energy with decentralised sources; on the other the increase of grass-root initiatives for collaborative housing (co-housing). Co-housing is the overall term for groups of households that together manage their living environment. From recent research on co-housing in Europe it becomes clear that most initiatives consider themselves pioneers for energy-transition. From this combination of trends, the question arises how the design of co-housing can match the decentralised energy flows, in a way that supports collaborative selfmanagement. Compared to the conventional ways of housing provision, and to singlefamily units, sharing the building volume and managing the buildings’ utilities holds extra opportunities to optimize the energy-household, for example: creating critical mass to enable investments, implement recycling mechanisms, organise collective learning or divide tasks in managing and monitoring. This paper relates the specific built form to the organization of self-governance and the patterns of living in co-housing. It is based on field-studies in different generations of Dutch co-housing projects, gathering information on grass-root initiatives through interviews as well as participative research. The conclusions argue that the application of renewable sources can be optimised as a direct result of the social architecture of co-housing. The use of common (shared) utilities and equipment can however only be successful when the self-management aspects are taken into account during design phases.@en

Across Europe, the number of co-housing initiatives is growing, and they are increasingly receiving attention from administrators and professionals who hold high expectations for urban liveability. Is co-housing a marginal idealist phenomenon, or the urban middle class’ answer to the current housing crisis? And has the development of theoretical insight and research kept up with the actual expansion of co-housing as a practice? These questions were raised during the first European conference on co-housing research, which took place in Tours, France, in March 2012. Both the conference and this book aim to move beyond case-studies, and to look more particularly at the implications and wider perspective of the current co-housing trend.@en

This article reviews a decade of co-housing studies and publications, to identify major themes and research gaps. Generally, co-housing is seen as a promising model for urban development, and most empirical case studies report active and diverse communities, creating and maintaining affordable living environments. However, numbers are small and there is as yet no quantitative evidence to substantiate the claims. Nevertheless, important lessons can be drawn from co-housing as an integrated practice to meet today’s societal and environmental challenges. Rather than its utopian ambitions, the frictions with current institutional frameworks point the way to transform these into more adequate agents of development.@en

Co-housing is the overall term for groups of households creating and managing their own living environment. From recent research on co-housing in EU member states it becomes clear that cohousing initiatives consider themselves as pioneers for energy-transition. Nevertheless, the value and contribution of co-housing initiatives to housing provision and sustainable urban development, both quantitative and qualitatively, have hardly been assessed. Fitting the design features of cohousing buildings into energy performance calculation models already poses some problems. In addition, everyday practices such as sharing domestic services make energy-demand in co-housing (potentially) different from single-household residence. This paper first presents an inventory of keyelements illustrated by Dutch co-housing projects. On this basis it proposes a model for energy performance assessment that goes beyond the building-related normatised EP-models.@en