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

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

In the case of a relatively traditional society like India, on the one hand gender roles are strongly enforced, while on the other hand the continuous feminization of the workforce has been a result of the liberalization of global policies in the early 90’s. The still present binary definition of gender is confining men to the productive space and relegating women to the domestic sphere. The entrance of women in the labor force implies the entrance of women in the public urban space. This paper challenges this spatial separation of industry from the urban life of the city in the current context, when the landscape of industries is changing from manufacturing to service. This relationship between urban morphology of the industry and the gendering of paid work will be illustrated in the Indian context. A case study of two industries in Bangalore highlights the unique challenges of women participating in the workforce. The paper explores if another urban model is possible, responding better to women’s needs.@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

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

As an alternative to traditional housing development that has self-management, codesign and resident participation at its core, initiating cohousing groups often struggle to be recognised by traditional housing institutions. They can also lack the social, technical and financial expertise required to articulate needs or bring projects to fruition. When mainstream development partners (e.g., architects and housing associations) are involved, they too may misunderstand fundamental risks and issues related to self-managed housing groups. These knowledge gaps are addressed by either hiring external development consultants, programme managers and financial and legal advisers, or involving novel professions catering to cohousing particularities such as group-facilitators, process-management and legal coop-specialists. The expertise of these ‘professional activists’ is often (initially) based on personal experience living or developing their own group, rather than formal training. This paper will draw on interviews carried out with cohousing professionals and advisers in the Netherlands, France, the UK and US to: (a) look at the specific needs and emerging offer of professionals, training and networks in each country and (b) identify major dilemma’s and risks connected to different fields of expertise and to the process of ‘becoming’ professional, including: credibility and objectivity, exploitation and power dynamics, and commercialisation and monopolisation. We conclude with a discussion about how the move to ‘professionalise co-housing’ is connected to key questions and debates around ‘the need to’ mainstream and institutionalise this alternative sector according to particular logics. We ask what successful professionalization looks like and describe new paradigms for collaboration in housing provision and management.@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

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

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

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

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

Harmonizing subsoil management in spatial planning: the Netherlands, Sweden and Flanders.@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

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