Housing policy biases who can form intentional communities toward privileged groups

Evidence

In the cohousing example, the political context of little state support in cohousing development and little interest from housing associations made private ownership the most feasible model, which limited projects’ success rates (Field, 2015; Archer et. al 2021). This in turn meant that cohousing became an easier option for the older, alternative, White homeowning middle-classes, and shaped the practice and visions in line with their habitus and specific needs and possibilities (Arbell, 2021b). Contextualised identities and subjectivities, therefore, shape visions and practices of commoning. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 60

Categorization

  • SEED: Angle for an essay: how ‘choice’ in housing models reproduces class and racial homogeneity even in progressive cooperative/cohousing settings — the hidden selection bias of ownership-based alternatives.
  • corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 60
  • XREF: connects to: Cohousing’s participatory ethos creates barriers to social diversity — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 83; Homeownership fails as a wealth-building tool for Black Americans due to structural discrimination — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project: A New American Origin…, 1376; Commoners share mainstream housing desires yet frame solutions differently. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 63 (+2 more)

Broader Connections