International Case Studies
The five international case studies are:
- Lange Eng Co-housing, Albertslund, Denmark (2008)
- Marmalade Lane / K1 Co-housing, Cambridge, UK (2019)
- Modulus Matrix Public Housing, Barcelona, Spain (2021)
- Huebergass Cooperative, Bern, Switzerland (2021)
- Haus C, Hobelwerk Areal / Mehr als Wohnen Cooperative, Oberwinterthur, Switzerland (2024)
International Context and Comparison
When comparing the international case studies with the Australian doctoral cases, it is important to outline key contextual differences. In comparison with Australia, the international setting generally has a more established approach to delivering non-speculative housing that achieves density, shares resources, and—importantly—recognises alternative housing typologies such as cohousing and cooperatives.¹ This means that the financial implications and borrowing options for these housing types are better understood.
These well-established pathways also provide citizens with more opportunities to organise collectively or join cooperative bodies to achieve stable tenure. Similarly, well-organised national and transnational bodies associated with cohousing and cooperatives can assist members or interested parties with advice on establishment, financing, and planning. Those curious about these housing types can often arrange site visits to observe how different communities live.²
As a further consequence of these typologies being more widely recognised, there is an increased—though still niche—likelihood of land being zoned for alternative housing uses through local or state planning overlays. It should be noted, however, that in several of the featured case study projects, an informed champion who could advise and advocate for alternative housing played a significant role in achieving this critical zoning outcome.³
Collective Housing
A note on the phrase collective housing is useful here, as terminology around alternative housing approaches can be confusing. Many terms are used to describe nuances of non-speculative housing, including cohousing, collaborative housing, and intentional communities. In this research, collective housing is adopted as an umbrella term describing housing provision predicated on the sharing of resources.⁴
These housing types are typically owner-occupied rather than investor-owned assets. For example, in the doctorate’s Australian case studies, all residents were owner-occupiers (with the exception of Assemble’s rent-to-buy model). The residents’ outlook and care for their homes and communities differed notably from that of a transient cohort or purely investment-driven housing.
Collective housing is often seen as attractive for its social values and the idea of “a bit more sharing.” Swedish sociologist Maria Törnqvist observes that it is “a reflection of societal challenges such as climate change, urban segregation, and detachment and loneliness in late-modern societies.”⁵ While these housing models have disrupted conventional housing markets, they remain a niche typology in both Australia and Europe.
Methodology
As noted earlier, most aspects of the methodology were comparable to those used in the doctorate. However, unlike the doctoral research—which compared collective and speculative projects—this research compared collective housing with a public housing project: Modulus Matrix.
Including an example of state-supplied housing arose from a curiosity generated during the doctorate regarding the applicability—or potential unsuitability—of collective housing attributes within public housing contexts. The inclusion of Modulus Matrix enabled the research to examine how design themes manifested on site and to assess their relevance beyond the relatively privileged, educated, and mobilised demographic that characterises many collective housing cohorts.⁶ ⁷
Case studies and their contextual settings were visited over a total of 21 days, from 9–30 June 2025. During this period, interviews and conversations with 18 participants provided insights from residents, developers, architects, and project managers, alongside observed site conditions. This fieldwork enabled the identification of recurring themes and previously unknown points of comparison, leading to comparative insights discussed in subsequent chapters.
As Gubrium and Holstein note, fieldwork of this kind allows researchers to “learn about places we have not been and could not go and about settings in which we have not lived.”⁸ On-the-ground exploration is particularly valuable in housing research and was integral to the significance of this Alastair Swayn Foundation International Research Grant.
Thematic Hierarchy
As an extension of the Living Together doctoral research, the International Research Grant findings tested the relevance of eight key themes identified as frameworks for living at density through the Australian case studies.⁹ While these themes largely recurred across the international case studies,¹⁰ the grant clarified their relative hierarchy.
The findings reinforced the importance—and success—of four primary themes:
- Shared Outdoors (collectively used external spaces)
- Private Outdoor Spaces (individual external space)
- Open Circulation (external movement through buildings, rather than internal lift and corridor access)
- Building Clusters (multiple smaller housing clusters)
Accordingly, this report discusses these themes in detail.
Two sub-themes are also addressed briefly:
- Flexible Rooms, which highlights the role of multi-use spaces—particularly in cohousing projects—where communal kitchen–dining–living rooms are fundamental to collective life. This was less relevant in projects without community-led programming, such as public housing and some cooperatives, reinforcing findings from the doctorate.¹¹
- Shared Amenity, which focuses on communal car parking strategies, a consideration particularly relevant to Australian housing due to its car-reliant urban and cultural context.
Why This Home?
Resident Choice and Preference
Consistent with resident surveys undertaken for the doctorate,¹² participants cited three primary reasons for choosing their homes:
- The relative cost of housing compared with local alternatives
- Location and access to reliable public transport and/or city centres
- The perceived “value for money” offered by the dwellings
An additional theme that emerged was the relevance of collective housing models—such as cohousing and cooperatives—for single parents and ageing residents. These models operate outside traditional residential frameworks or aged-care facilities and were perceived as offering greater choice than conventional housing typologies.
As these demographic groups continue to grow, their housing needs warrant increased attention.¹³ ¹⁴ While these topics merit further research in their own right, they fall outside the scope of this report.
How to Use This Report
The report is structured as follows:
Part 1 introduces the case studies and provides key information about each project, including housing typology, plot size, location, dwelling composition, and overarching features.
Part 2 examines the four main themes and two sub-themes in relation to the case studies, analysing their comparative impact and configuration through photographs and architectural diagrams. Interviews with residents, architects, and managing bodies identify areas of success and limitation, offering insights into the challenges and benefits of each typology.
Part 3 concludes with summary observations on the exemplary case studies and presents a working spectrum of design and policy considerations for prospective residents, legislators, and designers seeking to deliver medium-density alternative housing of the kind explored in this research.
Read the report
