Collective Housing in Belgium and the Netherlands: A Comparative Analysis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i1.4750 |
Resumo: | Collective housing (CH) is undergoing a revival in Belgium. Since 2009, the Flemish Government Architect and his team have been advocating CH, stressing its importance as a task for architects given the demand for affordable housing and the need to reduce the environmental impact of housing. This support for CH has converged with the work of the non-profit citizen organization Samenhuizen (“Living together”) and the ad hoc initiatives taken by individual households and architects. In the Netherlands too, where there is a longer tradition of CH, the phenomenon is once more on the rise because of the housing crisis. As it is a developing topic, the terminology used for CH is also evolving. Drawing on publications on the subject in both Belgium and the Netherlands as well as on interviews with relevant stakeholders, this article sheds light on two widely published cases in both countries (pioneering and current, greenfield and conversion). These cases are compared in regard to thematic areas, based on an extensive literature study on collaborative housing by Lang et al. (2018). In addition to such aspects as the balance between “individuality” and the “collective,” we compare the role played by architects in both countries. Besides similarities, we show that the historical context, and especially the housing policy of each country, has a great influence and that the role of the architect is essential in the development of older and contemporary cohousing projects. |
id |
RCAP_71a7655c4515cfa74dd75b7f69633cf6 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/4750 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Collective Housing in Belgium and the Netherlands: A Comparative Analysiscentral living; cohousing; collective housing; housing cultureCollective housing (CH) is undergoing a revival in Belgium. Since 2009, the Flemish Government Architect and his team have been advocating CH, stressing its importance as a task for architects given the demand for affordable housing and the need to reduce the environmental impact of housing. This support for CH has converged with the work of the non-profit citizen organization Samenhuizen (“Living together”) and the ad hoc initiatives taken by individual households and architects. In the Netherlands too, where there is a longer tradition of CH, the phenomenon is once more on the rise because of the housing crisis. As it is a developing topic, the terminology used for CH is also evolving. Drawing on publications on the subject in both Belgium and the Netherlands as well as on interviews with relevant stakeholders, this article sheds light on two widely published cases in both countries (pioneering and current, greenfield and conversion). These cases are compared in regard to thematic areas, based on an extensive literature study on collaborative housing by Lang et al. (2018). In addition to such aspects as the balance between “individuality” and the “collective,” we compare the role played by architects in both countries. Besides similarities, we show that the historical context, and especially the housing policy of each country, has a great influence and that the role of the architect is essential in the development of older and contemporary cohousing projects.Cogitatio2022-03-31info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i1.4750oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/4750Urban Planning; Vol 7, No 1 (2022): The Terms of Dwelling: Re-Theorizing Housing Through Architecture; 336-3482183-7635reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/4750https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i1.4750https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/4750/4750Copyright (c) 2022 Els De Vos, Lidwine Spoormanshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessDe Vos, ElsSpoormans, Lidwine2022-12-20T10:59:44Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/4750Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:21:55.248223Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Collective Housing in Belgium and the Netherlands: A Comparative Analysis |
title |
Collective Housing in Belgium and the Netherlands: A Comparative Analysis |
spellingShingle |
Collective Housing in Belgium and the Netherlands: A Comparative Analysis De Vos, Els central living; cohousing; collective housing; housing culture |
title_short |
Collective Housing in Belgium and the Netherlands: A Comparative Analysis |
title_full |
Collective Housing in Belgium and the Netherlands: A Comparative Analysis |
title_fullStr |
Collective Housing in Belgium and the Netherlands: A Comparative Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Collective Housing in Belgium and the Netherlands: A Comparative Analysis |
title_sort |
Collective Housing in Belgium and the Netherlands: A Comparative Analysis |
author |
De Vos, Els |
author_facet |
De Vos, Els Spoormans, Lidwine |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Spoormans, Lidwine |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
De Vos, Els Spoormans, Lidwine |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
central living; cohousing; collective housing; housing culture |
topic |
central living; cohousing; collective housing; housing culture |
description |
Collective housing (CH) is undergoing a revival in Belgium. Since 2009, the Flemish Government Architect and his team have been advocating CH, stressing its importance as a task for architects given the demand for affordable housing and the need to reduce the environmental impact of housing. This support for CH has converged with the work of the non-profit citizen organization Samenhuizen (“Living together”) and the ad hoc initiatives taken by individual households and architects. In the Netherlands too, where there is a longer tradition of CH, the phenomenon is once more on the rise because of the housing crisis. As it is a developing topic, the terminology used for CH is also evolving. Drawing on publications on the subject in both Belgium and the Netherlands as well as on interviews with relevant stakeholders, this article sheds light on two widely published cases in both countries (pioneering and current, greenfield and conversion). These cases are compared in regard to thematic areas, based on an extensive literature study on collaborative housing by Lang et al. (2018). In addition to such aspects as the balance between “individuality” and the “collective,” we compare the role played by architects in both countries. Besides similarities, we show that the historical context, and especially the housing policy of each country, has a great influence and that the role of the architect is essential in the development of older and contemporary cohousing projects. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-03-31 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i1.4750 oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/4750 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i1.4750 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/4750 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/4750 https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i1.4750 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/4750/4750 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Els De Vos, Lidwine Spoormans http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Els De Vos, Lidwine Spoormans http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Urban Planning; Vol 7, No 1 (2022): The Terms of Dwelling: Re-Theorizing Housing Through Architecture; 336-348 2183-7635 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799130665199861760 |