Abstract

In recent years, cohousing projects have flourished in Brussels, particularly in the central working-class neighbourhoods, with the support of associations and certain political stakeholders. This article takes a closer look at the reasons for their success. Based on a two-year field survey of nine cohousing projects, it also analyses the architectural typologies associated with them and the ideological principles underlying them, as well as the uses made of them by the residents. In particular, the article highlights the discrepancies which may exist between a spatial vocabulary based on the desire to promote the creation of community life, and the uses and expectations of the targeted disadvantaged population.

Highlights

  • Brussels Studies, Collection généraleBoitsfort created in 1973 as part of the Abbeyfield movement

  • Their promotion by associations such as Habitat et Participation and by political stakeholders is a more recent phenomenon. This is evidenced by the existence of new public funding which allows the development of partnerships between associations, private entrepreneurs, citizen groups and sometimes public operators

  • Intended to offer responses to the Brussels affordable housing crisis [Dessouroux et al 2016] and alternatives to the traditional housing model, these policies target households and individuals living in precarious conditions, as well as more affluent profiles

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Boitsfort created in 1973 as part of the Abbeyfield movement. Their promotion by associations such as Habitat et Participation and by political stakeholders is a more recent phenomenon. This is evidenced by the existence of new public funding which allows the development of partnerships between associations, private entrepreneurs, citizen groups and sometimes public operators. Intended to offer responses to the Brussels affordable housing crisis [Dessouroux et al 2016] and alternatives to the traditional housing model, these policies target households and individuals living in precarious conditions, as well as more affluent profiles

Difficulties in accessing housing
Variable-geometry family pathways
Attentive public action
A specific architectural vocabulary
Between the living space and its environment: controlled permeability
The private space: a controlled opening
A model for living which stands up to a diverse population
Self-promoted cluster housing: a shared ideal of a way of living
Cohousing for disadvantaged populations: often a forced choice
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call