The term collective housing encompasses co-housing, cooperatives, community housing, community land trusts, papa kāinga, limited profit development and build-to-rent models. What each has in common is a desire for more equitable, community-focused and accessible housing outcomes. 

Bringing together government organisations, academic researchers and designers, the CoHoHui provides a great opportunity for advocates to connect, reflect on shared challenges and reinforce the message that systemic change is required for collective housing to become accessible in Aotearoa New Zealand. Content across the sessions provided first-hand insights into real-life challenges currently leading many excellent and well-intentioned projects to hit major hurdles and founder. 

Providing hope and inspiration was architectural and urban researcher Robert Temel, who called in via Zoom, providing insights into the lending mechanisms that have led to collective housing becoming more the norm rather than the exception in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. In Vienna, access to premium construction sites (land in close proximity to infrastructure, amenities and public transport nodes) is granted to government-regulated private development entities known as Limited Profit Developers (LPDs). Regulation caps development profit, maintaining housing affordability and supply for end users. In return for taking on development risk, LPDs benefit from a steady pipeline of fixed price sites. This incredibly successful approach has contributed to 76% of housing in Vienna being delivered via non-traditional ownership models, with citizens benefiting from lower cost, higher quality accommodation options, security of tenure and a reduction in disparity. 

In addition, a delivery mechanism known as ‘Concept Design Land Tenders’ assures high quality design outcomes for the city and citizens, as LPDs compete against one another for access to land. The highest quality design concept presented at time of tender secures the land. Regulations such as this could substantially benefit the collective housing sector on this side of the globe. 

The common refrain from CoHoHui 23 was that community-led collective housing developments are challenging and fraught with risk, as inexperienced private individuals typically amalgamate to seek funding under commercial arrangements and often offer their family home for leverage. A great alternative could be found in a Kiwi version of Vienna’s ‘Limited Profit Developer’ programme. This could provide a professional and accessible alternative for those who are looking for different ways of living. There is a space in Aotearoa New Zealand’s residential sector for new models of developer-led housing contributing to the design and supply ecosystem and, if they work as successfully as Auckland’s Cohaus, also presented, many lives will be richer for it.

Ian Mitchell, who leads the property advisory division of Livingston and Associates, presented some very relevant research about the limitations of New Zealand’s current tenure environment and the barriers and enablers which impact the growth of alternative affordable tenures. Specifically, he discussed the intermediate housing market – a term coined by ‘can work, can’t buy’, which (unreassuringly) confirms New Zealand’s position on the missing middle. His talk could be summed up by his statement: “New Zealand lacks a focused and appropriately funded national housing policy with clear and measurable goals.” His full research report would be a worthwhile read for anyone in the policy and housing space.

And who doesn’t love hearing from Jade Kake (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Whakaue, Te Whakatōhea). In her relatively short career to date, she has navigated more challenges than most, with a phenomenal depth of appreciation for the whānau, financial and legal issues that present themselves in Māori land development for papakāinga – many of which challenges are common to other collective housing tenures.

As the founder and director of Matakohe and senior lecturer at AUT’s School of Future Environments, Kake contributes hugely to the profession as well as her whānau hapū. Before breaking for lunch, we enjoyed some excellent quick fire presentations, including Thom Gill representing Cohaus, Bronwen Newton from Urban Habitat Collective, Simone Woodland and Sarrah Jayne from Tākaka Cohousing Neighbourhood, Matangireia Yates-Francis on his papakāinga-focused Master’s thesis, Jesse Matthews from Spacecraft Architects on the Buckley Road ‘Block Party’ cohousing development and Campbell McNeill of AHHA about The Deco Hall for Ōtepoti Futures Trust. These developments illustrated the determination and effort required to get collective housing projects across the line.

After lunch, the political panel certainly countered any carb coma, including debate between Shannan Halbert (Labour MP for Northcote), Tama William Potaka (National MP for Hamilton West), Steve Abel (Green Party West Auckland candidate), Brooke van Velden (ACT Deputy Leader and List MP) and Damian Sycamore (TOP Party Auckland Central candidate). The panellists were asked to share their understanding of collective housing and their ability to promote innovation in housing if they were to be elected.

Greer O’Donnell, co-founder and director of The Urban Advisory, moderated the panel expertly, making sure the panellists were challenged enough to return to their respective parties with the report: “We better figure out what this collective housing business is all about!” Afternoon workshops and sideline discussions focused on: ‘putting collective in collective housing’, non-speculative development, social wellbeing, rural development, finance for co-housing developments, women in housing and the co-design process.  

Alan Borthwick of DUX Financial Services advised on construction and mortgage finance for Buckley Road, Urban Habitat Collective and latterly on Tākaka Cohousing. Managing relationships between the bank and residents, he has coined the term ‘owner occupier developers’ to communicate to the bank in neutral terms the non-speculative, non-commercial nature of these collective housing developments. He presented a lot of helpful advice and could happily attest to the inconsistency and lack of understanding of these projects within the lending environment.

In the spirit of the concepts discussed, it seemed as though everyone was there to share new ideas, small wins and learnings. While the atmosphere was positive, there was an underlying frustration that collective housing projects which lie outside of government interest or purpose-built vehicles are next-to-impossible to get off the ground and there’s no clear path to scalability. Current political, financial and legal frameworks are not set up to enable these projects. Overall, there were probably less ‘active’ projects in the room compared to previous years but no less enthusiasm. Potentially the battle-hardened advocates will yet see their dreams of more collective living.