Cooperative living, a form of housing and community development based on mutual aid and collective ownership, has evolved significantly over the years. From its utopian community roots in the 19th century to the modern co-housing movements, cooperative living has aimed to create more sustainable, inclusive, and socially connected environments. As someone who’s visited Kibbutzim in Israel and wants to see more prevelant community ties, I’ve explored where co-ops evolved from in the USA, current adoption patterns, and challenges when it comes to popularizing this form of living.
The concept of living cooperatively is not new. It can trace its origins back to the utopian experiments of the 19th century, such as the Shakers, who started in England and moved to the American colonies in 1774, and New Harmony, Indiana, founded by Robert Owen in 1825. These communities were built on the principles of shared labor and communal ownership, though many were short-lived due to internal conflicts and economic difficulties.
In the 20th century, cooperative living saw a revival with the emergence of cooperative farms and housing projects during the Great Depression. For example, the Greenbelt Towns created under the New Deal in the 1930s, such as Greenbelt, Maryland, offered government-organized cooperative housing. Post-World War II, the idea transformed with the civil rights movement and counterculture of the 1960s and 70s, leading to the establishment of communal houses and co-housing projects.
Today, notable cooperative living arrangements can be found across the United States. For instance, the Twin Oaks Community in Virginia, founded in 1967, (they currently have space for 90 adult members) and the more recent example of the Earthaven Ecovillage in North Carolina, founded in 1994, highlight the diversity and adaptability of cooperative living arrangements. These coops share resources such as utilities, maintenance costs, and sometimes food, members of cooperative living arrangements can significantly reduce individual expenses.
Cooperative living tends to be more popular in regions with strong progressive cultural leanings such as the Pacific Northwest, Northern California, and parts of the Northeast. These areas often have supportive local policies and a cultural openness to alternative living arrangements.
The benefits of cooperative living are manifold, including reduced living costs through shared resources, a smaller ecological footprint, and a supportive social network that enhances community bonds and individual well-being.
Regulatory issues
One of the main hurdles to the spread of cooperative living is the complex web of local zoning laws and housing regulations that are not designed to accommodate shared living arrangements. For example, zoning laws in many cities restrict the number of unrelated people who can live together, a direct challenge to cooperative houses.
Zoning laws in the United States are often the first significant barrier to establishing or expanding cooperative living communities. These laws, which vary widely between municipalities, typically regulate land use to ensure it aligns with a city or town’s development plan. For cooperative living, the main issues arise around definitions of family, the number of unrelated individuals who can legally live together, and the types of buildings where such living arrangements are permissible.
For example, many cities have zoning ordinances that define a family as a group of people related by blood, marriage, or adoption. In cities like Minneapolis and Atlanta, zoning codes have been amended to allow a larger number of unrelated individuals to cohabit, thereby supporting cooperative living setups. However, in other places, such regulations still pose a significant challenge, prohibiting the formation of cooperatives in residential areas.
Building codes also play a crucial role in shaping the viability of cooperative living. These codes ensure that buildings meet safety standards, which is undoubtedly crucial, but they can also inadvertently hinder the adaptation of existing structures into cooperative homes. Requirements around square footage per occupant, the number of exits, and fire safety standards, while necessary for safety, can limit the capacity of cooperative homes or increase the costs of adaptation disproportionately.
Some cooperatives prefer to build communities around common interests, beliefs, or lifestyles, which can sometimes be seen as discriminatory under fair housing laws. Balancing the desire for a cohesive community with compliance with fair housing laws is a nuanced aspect of developing cooperative living arrangements.
Financial obstacles
Access to financing is another significant barrier. Traditional lenders often hesitate to fund co-op projects due to their unconventional nature and perceived risks. This lack of financial support can stifle the formation and expansion of cooperative communities.
There are some organizations like the National Cooperative Bank in the US, which provides specialized banking services to cooperatives, including real estate loans, lines of credit, and other financial services that support cooperative growth and maintenance.
Another option are revolving loan funds (RLFs) specifically for cooperatives, which can provide a sustainable funding source. An RLF works by recycling money as loans are paid back, allowing the fund to lend to other coops over time. This system could be funded initially through public grants, private donations, or community investments. For instance, a city could establish an RLF to promote cooperative housing as part of its affordable housing strategy, offering low-interest loans to coop developers.
Government intervention via guarantees or subsidies can make coops are more likely reality as these projects will become more attractive to lenders. Guarantees or subsidies can make coop projects more attractive to lenders. For example, a government could guarantee a certain percentage of the loan amount for coop housing projects, mitigating the perceived risk for lenders. Additionally, direct subsidies could reduce the initial capital required from coop members, making the coop model more accessible to a broader range of economic backgrounds.
Flexible mortgage products or rent-to-equity models can help with the initial financing obstacles. Traditional mortgage products do not always align well with the cooperative model. Developing flexible mortgage products that recognize the unique ownership structure of coops could ease the financing challenges. These products could include features like shared mortgages, where the loan is underwritten considering the financial strength of the entire coop, rather than individual members. This approach reduces the risk for lenders and can provide more favorable terms for borrowers.
Cultural and social resistance
The American ideal of individualism often clashes with the communal ethos of cooperative living. This mindset can make people wary of sharing their living spaces and responsibilities with others outside their immediate family unit.
With continued advocacy, policy support, and community engagement, the cooperative movement can expand its reach, demonstrating that it is not just an alternative but a preferred solution for modern living challenges. The journey of cooperative living from historical concept to future innovation reflects its enduring appeal and evolving adaptability, promising a more connected and sustainable tomorrow.
unpublished alpha 