Kako citirati
Sažetak
Istraživanje ima za cilј dublјe razumevanje odnosa između veličine „cohousing” zajednica i distribucije zajedničkih prostora, uz primenu kriterijuma analize kao što su veličina, raspored i funkcija ovih prostora. Postavlјena je hipoteza da postoji obrnuta proporcija između veličine zajednice i procenta zajedničkih prostora u odnosu na ukupnu površinu, što znači da veće zajednice imaju manji procenat zajedničkih prostora. Metodologija istraživanja uklјučuje pregled i analizu primera stambenih zajednica iz različitih kulturnih i urbanih konteksta, sa cilјem da se identifikuju klјučni faktori koji utiču na organizacione strukture i ekonomsku održivost ovih zajednica. Istraživanje takođe ispituje nivo samostalnosti zajednica u zavisnosti od njihove veličine i kompleksnosti. Rezultati ovog istraživanja pokazuju da je u manjim „cohousing” zajednicama veći procenat zajedničkih prostora u odnosu na ukupnu površinu, dok u većim zajednicama ovaj procenat opada. Ovaj odnos ima značajne implikacije za organizaciju, funkcionalnost i ekonomsku održivost zajednica. Istraživanje pruža nova saznanja koja mogu doprineti budućem dizajnu i organizaciji „cohousing” zajednica, sa cilјem da se očuvaju osnovne vrednosti zajedništva i saradnje, uz optimizaciju zajedničkih prostora i pobolјšanje kvaliteta života stanovnika.
Ključne reči
zajednički prostori
održivost zajednica
veličina zajednica
sistem upravlјanja
Reference
Alfirević, Đ., Simonović Alfirević, S. 2018. Constitutive motives in living space organisation. Facta Universitatis, 16 (2), 189−201, https://doi.org/10.2298/FUACE170414002A.
Alfirević, Đ., Simonović Alfirević, S. 2020. Uloga teritorijalnosti u prostornoj organizaciji coliving zajednice. Arhitektura i urbanizam, 50, 7−19, https://doi.org/10.5937/a-u0-25785.
Babos, A., Szabó, J., Orbán, A., Benkő, M. 2020. Sharing-based co-housing categorization: A structural overview of the terms and characteristics used in urban co-housing. Épités - Épitészettudomány, 48 (3−4), 331−335, https://doi.org/10.1556/096.2020.009.
Bouma, J. T., Poelman, W. A., Voorbij, A. I. M. 2010. Supporting social contact design principles in common areas of cohousing communities. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/4722409/Supporting_social_contact_design_principles_in_common_areas_of_cohousing_communities [Accessed: 19.08.2024].
Caves, R. W. 2005. Encyclopedia of the city. London: Routledge.
Chiodelli, F., Baglione, V. 2014. Living together privately: for a cautious reading of cohousing. Urban Research & Practice, 7 (1), 20–34, https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2013.827905.
Christian, D. L. 2004. Creating a life together: Practical tools to grow. 2 izd. Vancouver: New Society Publishers.
Darling, E. M. 2017. Space for community: cohousing as an alternative density model for housing Seattle. Washington: University of Washington.
Foundation for Intentional Community. 2018. Community types. Available at: https://www.ic.org/directory/community-types/ [Accessed: 19.08.2024].
Holtzman, D. 2014. Community by design, by the people: social approach to designing and planning cohousing and ecovillage communities. Journal of green building, 9 (3), 60−82. https://doi.org/10.3992/1943-4618-9.3.60.
Jakobsen, P., Larsen, H. G. 2018. An alternative for whom? The evolution and socio-economy of Danish cohousing. Urban Research & Practice, 1−17, https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2018.1465582.
Jarvis, H. 2011. Saving space, sharing time: integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environment and Planning, 43(3), 560–577. https://doi.org/10.1068/a43296.
Lietaert, M. 2010. Cohousing’s relevance to degrowth theories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 576–580, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.11.016.
Livingston, A. 2022. Communal living & cohousing – types & benefits of intentional communities. Available at: https://www.moneycrashers.com/communal-living-cohousing-types-benefits-intentional-communities/ [Accessed: 19.08.2024].
McCamant, K., Durrett, C. 1988. Design considerations in cohousing: a contemporary approach to housing ourselves. California: Habitat Press.
McCamant, K., Durrett, C. 2011. Creating cohousing: building sustainable communities. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.
McCollum, K. 2018. Cohousing- the answer to sustainable development. Corvallis: Oregon State University.
McKenzie, E. 1994. Privatopia: homeowner associations and the rise of residential private government. Doktorska disertacija. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Medar, K., Čurčić, A. 2021. Cohousing and coliving − comparative analysis of two alternative housing typologies by reviewing contemporary trends. Facta Universitatis, 19 (1), 81−92, https://doi.org/10.2298/FUACE210329007M.
Njegić, T., Manić, B., Lojanica, V. 2022. Creating more sustainable social housing in Serbia: a conceptual framework for architectural and urban design. Facta Universitatis, 20 (2), 131−150, https://doi.org/10.2298/FUACE220411011N.
Milojević, M. 2013. Plan susedstva − norme prostorne i društvene distanciranosti. Doktorska disertacija. Beograd: Arhitektonski fakultet.
Ruiu, M. L. 2015. The social capital of cohousing communities. Sociology, 50 (2), 400−415, https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515573473.
Sanguinetti, A. (2014). Transformational practices in cohousing: Enhancing residents’ connection to community and nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 86−96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.05.003.
Scotthanson, C., Scotthanson, K. 2005. The Cohousing Handbook. Vancouver: New Society Publishers.
Tummers, L. 2015а. The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in Europe: A critical review of co-housing research. Urban Studies, 53(10), 2023−2040, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015586696.
Tummers, L. 2015b. Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: why and how?. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 64−78, https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1011427.
The cohousing association of the United States, 2008, Size matters, Available at: https://www.cohousing.org/size-matters/ [Accessed: 19.08.2024].
Vestbro, D. U. 2010. Living together-cohousing ideas and realities around the world: proceedings from the International Collaborative Housing Conference in Stockholm 5−9 May 2010. Copenhagen: Division of urban and regional studies, Royal Institute of Technology in collaboration with Kollektivhus NU.
Vestbro, D. U. 2014. Kollektivhus. Available at: http://www.kollektivhus.nu/pdf/SwedishCohousing14.pdf [Accessed: 19.08.2024].
Vestbro, D. U., Horelli, L. 2012. Design for gender equality: the history of co-housing ideas and realities. Built Environment 38 (3), https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.38.3.315.
Williams, J. 2005. Designing neighbourhoods for social interaction: the case of cohousing. Journal of Urban Design, 10 (2), 195–227, https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800500086998.
А- Marina Campus, Barcelona, Spain- https://www.archdaily.com/892071/the-student-hotel-campus-marina-barcelona-masquespacio/5ac6f69af197ccbb70000597-the-student-hotel-campus-marina-barcelona-masquespacio-photo?next_project=no
Б- Stacken, Bergsjon, Gothenburg, Sweden- http://www.kollektivhus.nu/pdf/kollhist.pdf
В- Stolplyckan, Linköping, Sweden- http://www.kollektivhus.nu/pdf/SwedishCohousing14.pdf
Г- Färdknäppen, Stockholm, Sweden- https://www.fardknappen.se/public_html/In_English.html
Д- Vind song, Langley, Canada- https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/07/30/BC-Celebrates-Quarter-Century-Co-Housing/
Ђ- Collective House Seiseki, Tokio, Japan- https://chc.or.jp/chcproject/seiseki.html
Е- Jamaica Plain Co-Housing, Boston, United States- https://www.cohousing.org/directory/jamaica-plain-cohousing/