Search

This paper explores the challenges of everyday practices of co-operation in UK shared housing co-operatives, situated within literatures that stress the relational basis of these practices and the centrality of 'critical associations' to the conduct of everyday life. Shared housing co-operatives, based on mutual ownership and co-residence between unrelated adults, represent a radical departure from both the traditional landlord/tenant model of shared housing and newer models of shared provision such as co-living developments. They allow sharers to access affordable housing through effectively become their own landlord. Yet the practices of co-operation that generate these benefits are challenging, necessitating high levels of commitment to a common ethos and involving an unusual mix of both formal and informal ways of relating to co-residents. These features are explored in this paper. The paper concludes that, despite wider societal pressures towards the commodification of housing, the structures and norms of shared housing co-operatives allow them to transcend the strengths and weaknesses of their membership at any given time, and hence facilitate an unusual alternative to more widespread models of sharing in the private-rented sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cities across the world are in the grip of an intensifying housing crisis, in which access to affordable, secure, and appropriate housing is increasingly inaccessible for the majority. There is rising pressure on stakeholders to find solutions but, simultaneously, persistent opposition to housing models that contest the neoliberal logics which prioritise housing's financialisation. In this context, many proposed and developed "solutions" have focused on how housing can – in the words of one entry to an architectural competition – "GET SMALLER." Termed "micro‐living," a trend is emerging for housing models that shrink living spaces, either by providing self‐contained units at below minimum space standards or by offering "co‐living" tenancies in small private rooms with access to shared communal spaces. Presented as innovative and aspirational, micro‐living distinguishes itself from unequivocally problematic small housing, such as Hong Kong's "coffin homes" or the UK's "beds‐in‐sheds." While micro‐living is transforming ways of imagining, producing, and inhabiting cities, it has, as yet, been little explored by geographers. Responding to this gap, this paper traces the emerging geographies of micro‐living in major Western cities and demonstrates the importance of the topic in Geography. As well as detailing micro‐living's typologies, we excavate the lineages of micro‐living and consider the discourses it draws on in self‐presenting as an aspirational form of homemaking. In doing so, we highlight some of the issues that micro‐living responds to, exacerbates, and entrenches, including the stunted opportunities of millennials since the 2008 recession and the precarity of contemporary labour economies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on and developing Kingdon's multiple streams analysis, this article examines the development of one aspect of the UK's low cost home ownership programme: shared ownership. We demonstrate how key human and non-human policy entrepreneurs were able to set the agenda from 1973-1983 in favour of shared ownership; they neutralized the alternatives, while retaining some of their instruments; and solved a number of early problems by bringing key players into the programme. Our data-sets include a range of archival material and elite interviews. The policy entrepreneurs included John Stanley (who was the housing minister in the First Thatcher government), the National Federation of Housing Associations, and the Building Societies Association. Our development of the multiple streams analysis is to argue that documents, including the lease, act as policy entrepreneurs in their own right. The lease was central to the development of shared ownership and its transformation into a model lease enrolled other organizations, most critically the building societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is well documented that there exists ethnic discrimination in the regular housing market in European and US cities. However, the existing literature has so far neglected the informal market for shared housing. We use a field experiment to investigate ethnic discrimination in this market. We sent fictitious enquiries with a randomly assigned name signalling a British, Eastern European, Indian, African or Arabic/Muslim background to more than 5000 room advertisers in the Greater London Area. Our main finding is that ethnic discrimination is widespread. We also find that the degree of discrimination depends on the applicant's occupation and the ethnic residential concentration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a court case wherein relocation disputes involving cross-border movements and shared residence order within Great Britain is defined. The Court of Appeal, of Great Britain, examined relevant principles and concluded that it is 'wrong in principle' to take a different approach to shared residence order cases. However, the Court's analysis failed to acknowledge the complexity of the issues raised and consequently missed an opportunity to lay out clear guidance.

Recent housing welfare reform in Britain has left many younger welfare claimants with no choice but to move into a shared rental property with strangers. In this paper we take an intersectional approach to analyzing the impact of housing welfare reform, by examining how certain protected equalities groups may be particularly at risk from the potential harms of shared living with strangers. Drawing upon in-depth biographical interview data, we outline how young people often spoke of their share houses as places that were detrimental to their health and wellbeing. Our analysis focuses on two key themes: physical safety and violence, followed by mental health and isolation. Ultimately the paper examines whether housing welfare reform in Britain has resulted in placing already vulnerable people into potentially dangerous and unhealthy housing situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]