No matter your age or able-bodiedness, challenges associated with housing are going to be present in one form or another. The would-be buyers of younger generations face the problem of rising costs, while older homeowners face potential displacement. But one problem all generations face is social isolation, the double-edged sword of the single-family housing model. The answer to these woes may reside in Germany.
That’s according to research by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies conducted by Jennifer Molinsky, project director of the Center’s Housing and Aging Society Program, and Anne Marie Brady from the Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
The pair recently studied a pilot program carried out by the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ) from 2009 to 2015. The Wohnen für (mehr)Generationen Demonstration Program (Housing for Multiple Generations) was designed to create more cooperative, multigenerational housing throughout Germany. The researchers then compared the results in Germany to similar communal housing sites in the U.S.
They presented their findings during a webinar on Friday, April 14, with their published research coming soon.
The program’s implementation
Wohnen für (mehr)Generationen was a government grant program for housing developments. According to Molinsky, Germany faces similar challenges to housing as the U.S.—cost, social isolation, accommodations for different ages and the disabled, etc. The goal of the program was to create self-sufficient tenants, but ones with a strong sense of community, no matter their age.
Thirty projects throughout Germany were beneficiaries overall, determined by competitions, with grants ranging from €100k – €150k ($109,575 – $164,362 USD). Project size varied, with one consisting of five bedrooms and another being a 114-unit apartment complex.
Molinsky says that the developers of these projects were not career housing developers, but rather, people who came together for a specific renovation. This created upsides—profit was less a concern than community goals—but also challenges—they still had to go through typical legal processes and didn’t have experience doing so. Due to the necessity of an upfront investment, older families were more liable to partake in these projects, too.
One example cited was the Wohngemeinschaft Werkpalast, a former childcare center in Berlin. The building has since been renovated into a 20-unit co-op thanks to a (mehr)Generationen grant. Residents vary in age, and the building includes common spaces such as a playground and garden designed to create an all-ages community among the residents.
Affordability was woven into the ethos of the (mehr)Generationen communities; residents would pay monthly co-op fees, ensuring a shared burden. The research found that residents of these projects chose them primarily for a sense of community. The low cost was a bonus, but affordability was not the driving factor. Residents generally reported satisfaction with their communities, with common spaces being cited as conducive to fostering connections.
Differences between Germany and the U.S.
During the second half of the webinar, Brady took a closer look at parallel research conducted in the U.S. The goal was to assess how Germany’s model could potentially be transplanted while looking into where there is already multigenerational housing in the U.S.
Brady noted that the most apt comparison is not with multigenerational households, but rather, with “co-housing communities,” where individuals live in private units that share common spaces for community events and self-organization/management by residents. The Arboretum Cohousing in Madison, Wisconsin—currently home to 40 households—was one example cited.
Communities run by nonprofit organizations also tackle affordability with the same intent as the German program. One example cited was the Treehouse in Easthampton, Massachusetts. Designed for foster families and residents aged 55 and up, the community spans 46 acres. There’s also Plaza West in Washington, D.C., an apartment complex designed specifically for grandparents who are raising their grandchildren.
As in Germany, cohousing founders are generally not career housing developers, making the process more challenging and lengthy. Nonprofits tend to employ real estate professionals, but the steps of the development (acquiring a site, funding, etc.) are the same.
Cohousing communities rely on staff to facilitate community events, such as meals or childcare. However, Brady reports that residents felt that “even small interactions” can help reduce social isolation thanks to a sense of “belonging.” At the same time, this meant that communities should be kept smaller to maintain “cohesion.” Community building also reflects back on the physical spaces themselves, from architectural uniformity, a balance of public and private spaces, and designated areas for group activities.
One difference between German and American communities is that the former has more generous state-sponsored benefits for its citizens. This results in more affordable child and elder care. In the U.S. however, different residents of multigenerational housing could have widely different living costs depending on their age.
Existing federal support for cohousing communities includes tax credits and housing vouchers. The research’s suggested roles for the federal government to play include subsidies specific to multigenerational housing and funding for common spaces within communities.
Applicable lessons
Developers may sense an opportunity here to convert abandoned or empty buildings into thriving communities. So, could the U.S. not use the federal support model of the Wohnen für (mehr)Generationen and instead place communal housing in the private sector’s hands? The challenge is that community, not money, is the goal.
“You’d need to ensure a sense of ownership and shared interest in the values. I don’t think that’s impossible in a for-profit model, but […] these were the things that really kept communities together,” Brady opined.
“It would have to be a unique for-profit that’s willing to sacrifice potentially profit over human well-being,” added Molinsky.
Individual homeownership is a cornerstone of the American Dream. However, the expense of that has been escalating loneliness and isolation. The continued desire for community could be fulfilled through cohousing, but it requires a cultural rethinking.
Watch the recorded webinar here.
