Description

Public interest in community-oriented housing has risen significantly in recent years, in part in response to the ongoing debate on the social challenges presented by demographic change. The proportion of older people in society is rising, and with it the need among residents for greater support. The breadth and kind of support needed ranges from practical help in the home to nursing care services. The increasing demand for help and transfer services for older people places an ever greater financial burden on public budgets and social insurance schemes.

At the same time, the decreasing level of state pension provisions means that the money people have to finance care and support services privately is increasingly limited. It is therefore necessary to make better use of the available public economic resources, to increase their productivity and to examine the potential of creating added value using means not bound by traditional market mechanisms.

In light of this, alternative forms of living in which residents offer one another mutual assistance are increasingly being posited as a possible way of reducing the economic burden. But the attraction of these new forms of living is not solely limited to the material benefits they bring. The quality of life and the environment that such living constellations can offer is a further central aspect that can in turn make a positive contribution by reducing dependency on social support services and lessening the burden on public funds.

There is as yet no generally applicable definition of what community oriented housing is. Typically, the following characteristics differentiate community-oriented housing from other forms of housing:[1]

– Community-oriented housing projects are often the product of a jointly developed building project. Other models also exist, initiated by housing associations, social services providers or foundations in which residents may have little or no involvement in the planning phase.

– The housing buildings are designed to foster interaction between the residents. In addition to the individual residents’ own private dwellings, there are typically rooms and areas for communal use that encourage neighbours to socialise.

– The residents generally organise themselves how they wish to live together and help one another. This is the central component that differentiates community-oriented housing from normal neighbourly relations.

It is hard to evaluate the economic impact of these projects in practice due to the wide variety of different models that exist up to now. To begin with, one needs to identify the various individual ways in which they contribute. It is necessary to distinguish microeconomic effects from external effects that have an impact at a social and macroeconomic scale. From the viewpoint of the residents, a primary motivation is often the possibility to realise their living preferences in an affordable way. Community-oriented housing projects can make it possible, for example, to realise building projects with an individual character in high-density urban areas that would otherwise have exceeded the residents’ financial means as well as their respective planning competencies. Cost savings can also be achieved during the living phase by making use ofcommunal facilities.

In addition, market-driven transactions can – to a certain extent at least – be replaced by more cost-efficient neighbourhood help schemes. This aspect is somewhat ambivalent when seen from an economic perspect ive: if it is only a matter of replacing market-driven services, the macroeconomic benefit is a zero-sum game and results in what the state and private business views as undesirable tax avoidance and employment effects. From an economic viewpoint, such schemes should concentrate on services that could not otherwise be provided – for example because the necessary resources are lacking. There are also a number of other possible positive external effects: successful community-oriented housing projects can contribute to social stability, especially where social integration in the local neighbourhood is part of the project’s concept and the residents have strong personal – and economic – interactions with their local area. Likewise the reduced need for support in old age and the longer period spent living at home reduces the financial impact on pension insurance schemes and the local municipalities – and, through lower taxes and social insurance contributions, on society as a whole.

Measuring these diverse effects – to a sufficiently useful scientific standard – is extremely laborious. A comprehensive study in this context was undertaken as part of the SONG Network (Soziales Neu Gestalten, or: alternative approaches to designing social action).[2] The study looked at five housing projects that are part of the “Lebensräume für Jung und Alt” (Living environments for young and old) concept by the Liebenau foundation: the “Haus im Viertel” project by the Bremer Heimstiftung foundation, the “Heinrichstrasse” project by the protestant Johanneswerk organisation, and the multigenerational house in Wipperfürth near Cologne run by the Catholic Caritas holding company (CBT). These projects differ considerably, both in terms of age-group composition and household sizes. In all projects, mutual support between neighbours plays a central role. In terms of their architecture, the concepts are also very different. Common to them all, however, is that they afford barrier free access and provide spaces and areas of some kind for joint communal activities.

The empirical study examined 222 households and 313 people. Their experiences were compared with those of a control group of a similar composition living in conventional forms of housing. This group comprised 268 households and 428 people. The residents were asked to describe the extent of care and assistance needed and how it is covered by family members, by neighbours and by professional services, as well as how the cost of care is covered. In addition, they were asked about their level of satisfaction with their housing situation and life in general as well as their social interactions in the local neighbourhood. Because the model projects are run by non-profit organisations that are all part of the SONG Network, it was also possible to include the operational costs of the providers in the study. The evaluation procedure used was designed to minimize possible distortions resulting from differences in the respective socio-demographic structures.

The analysis showed that the need for support among elderly residents in the model projects resulted in significantly lower costs than in the control group. In three of the four computational analyses, the cost savings amounted to between 30 and 50%. Overall there was less need for assistance, not least due to the barrier-free accessibility of the projects. When help was necessary, support provided by neighbours played a much greater role than in the control group. For the most part this took the form of concrete help such as DIY, help in the home, running errands and assistance when dealing with authorities and public services. Last but by no means least, the quality of living and social interaction in the neighbourhood was rated much higher in the model projects than in the control group.

In short, both anecdotal evidence as well as empirical research suggests that community-oriented housing can have positive social and economic effects. With regard to the challenges of demographic change, which will place a massive burden on society in the coming years, such projects offer considerable potential for cost savings and provide additional benefits. In light of this, governments should examine the possibility of increasing public funding for housing projects that can provide care for older residents at a lower cost than is possible through other, more conventional forms of living for the elderly.

---

Originally published in: Annette Becker, Laura Kienbaum, Kristien Ring, Peter Cachola Schmal, Bauen und Wohnen in Gemeinschaft / Building and Living in Communities, Birkhäuser, 2015.