The Funnel of Contemporary Cohousing: From Macro Through Meso to Micro

5. Results and Analysis: Funneling Contemporary Cohousing

How do the stakeholders within the network of housing policy-making processes in the Netherlands relate to each other?

The identified and interpreted macro issues that affect the development and implementation of housing policies ultimately culminate in practice at the micro-level in housing development. The meso analysis guides the mediating process between these. To understand this mediating process more deeply, it is essential to consider how the stakeholders developing housing policy relate to each other (Evans, 2001; Dowding, 1995).

Policy makers from national and local governments are responsible for determining housing policy in the Netherlands and municipalities. In this, the government advises municipalities and vice versa, but both pursue independent policies because of the different contexts for which the policies are intended.

The municipality of Amsterdam has a more accurate picture of the context in which it operates, which leads to a more relevant housing policy where the demand from citizens is more heard. Although the National government and the municipality of Amsterdam advise each other, they ultimately decide on policies individually for their region. Developers dealing with housing policy seem to have little input. They are, as described in the previous paragraph, sometimes hindered in developing (innovative) housing due to the top-down and not consistently effective housing policy system. In general, therefore, governance is very centralized and public. But some developments point to a more decentralized bottom-up way of determining housing policy; for example, the municipality of Amsterdam is experimenting with a sample of contemporary cohousing concepts in the form of housing cooperatives, whereby residents form a democratic board to determine a policy that is limited in scope. In addition, the developer Amvest recently set up a department for what they call 'integral housing concepts,' where more innovative housing concepts are developed, and municipal input is central. Although this does not affect the current housing policy development directly, it could have an indirect influence on the development of housing policy in the future.

There seems to be a mutually working coordination in the network between the stakeholders discussed in the policy-making process. However, the relationship between housing policy to be determined still seems to be very centrally regulated with a top-down approach by the governemntal authorities.

How do housing policies and the principles of contemporary cohousing express themselves in a developer's practices?

To interpret the effect of housing policy and how it affects the development of contemporary cohousing, it is essential to consider the practices of a developer who realizes housing. The interviews revealed that for the developer Amvest, the identified macro issues that underlie housing policy-making also play a significant role in housing development. When Amvest's approach is assessed using Williams' (2017) framework, a very contrasting picture emerges where it appears that private ownership and use are central to Amvest's process.

Williams' framework is an extreme measure for meeting current cohousing initiatives by assessing the new common principles. Amvest tries to bend with social trends and focuses more and more on forming communities in their developments. Creating a whole department for more integral housing concepts

testifies to this, showing similarities with elements of contemporary cohousing. Nevertheless, the interviews also indicated how difficult it is to develop more innovative living forms due to obstructive laws and regulations. As a result, in most of Amvest's developments, the same 'usual' housing types are still being developed, whereby private use and ownership are central. These homes are the most practical for the company, and Amvest can get a minimum desired return from them because, among other things, they do not have the uncertainty of the housing policy for 'normal' types of homes. All in all, there are visible activities in Amvest's working method in the form of developments but also in the form of vision, which shows similarities with elements of contemporary cohousing initiatives, although not nearly radical enough yet to comply with the principles of the urban commons that emerge from the new commons (Williams, 2017). Amvest is highly dependent on especially the local housing policy of the municipality of Amsterdam, and this policy seems to have an inhibiting effect on the organization when they want to experiment with more innovative forms of housing.

How are contemporary co-housing initiatives influenced by the changing housing policies of local and national governments and the changing public-private relations?

This research is motivated by the idea that contemporary cohousing initiatives can serve as inspiration for solving socio-economic challenges. To determine if the Netherlands' and Amsterdam's housing policies are sufficient for this type of housing initiative, this research investigated what these policies are based on and how this translates into practices. Macro issues such as global warming and increasing inequality in the Netherlands greatly influence determining and implementation of housing policies. On the other hand, policymakers must deal with a specific context, which means that, for example, the municipality of Amsterdam can draft housing policies more accurately than the Dutch government. Nevertheless, the challenges on which national and local housing policies are based stem directly or indirectly from macro issues. The policy-making process in the Netherlands is generally top-down, and there is little influence possible from the private domain. But there are visible developments that indicate a slowly changing sentiment whereby there is more public-private coordination. However, the private developer Amvest seems to be hampered by the current housing policy when they want to develop housing concepts that share elements with contemporary cohousing initiatives. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the current housing policy of the Netherlands and Amsterdam does not have a conducive effect on contemporary cohousing initiatives in Amsterdam. In addition, the process of policy making is still top-down regulated. However, some developments indicate changing public-private relationships conducive to contemporary cohousing initiatives. Furthermore, this research only examined a fraction of the possible influences of housing policy on practices of contemporary cohousing initiatives in Amsterdam and the Netherlands. It is, therefore, interesting for future research to explore how other contemporary cohousing practices in a particular context came to be and how the changing public-private relationships are evolving.