by Ella Postuma ’25
In the past years, there has been a rise of people participating in intentional cohousing communities. There is a growing interest in cohousing communities because people are seeking ways to make their pattern of living in community more just and sustainable. Intentional communities are small, voluntary communities constructed around some shared values, often including shared responsibilities and resources (Metcalf 23). There are intentional communities all over the world, spanning locations from very rural to in urban centers, and ranging in size from ten members to one hundred or more members. Types of intentional cohousing communities include ecovillages, communes, housing co-ops, and collective households. Most cohousing communities are established through the Foundation for Intentional Community, IC.org, also through which new members can apply and join. FIC, founded in 1987, is a nonprofit organization that “helps people connect with and learn from community…to offer more sustainable and just ways of living together” (IC.org). In the words of the FIC “At a time when people are desperate for more social connection and answers to complex problems, intentional communities offer hope in an increasingly broken world.” (IC.org). Cohousing communities are a sustainable, practical way to help solve various problems hindering just communities; such as decreasing loneliness, including people on the margins, community connection, and improving the well-being of people and the planet.
The common values of intentional communities often include a commitment to be an active member in the community, and get to know other community members often through regular communal dinners. Sometimes intentional communities are also organized around a specific set of values, such as a commitment to sustainable living, religion, or social vision. There is a wide range of the selectivity of a given cohousing community, and level of commitment expected of its members. Intentional communities always include cohousing, but only sometimes include coliving. Cohousing is semi-communal housing including a cluster of private residences and shared community spaces such as gardens, laundries, larger kitchens, and gathering spaces (Metcalf 22). Coliving does not include a private residence but usually does include a private bedroom and sometimes a private bathroom, however all other spaces such as kitchen and living area are shared. When joining an intentional cohousing community, members often have a choice between whether they want to have their own residence –such as if they have their own family– or want to share a house with another member(s) of the community.
Loneliness is increasingly becoming a widespread societal issue. Humans are wired to live in community more than we have in the modernized patterns of the last couple decades. Cohousing communities are a practical, effective way to combat this problem because they can turn “loneliness into belonging and meaning” (IC.org). As Dr. Vivek Murthy, U.S. Surgeon General, describes, in prehistoric days, the more social connection we had, the better our chances of protection and survival (Kluger). This is still embedded in our nervous systems, therefore when we feel lonely, we are in a physiological state of stress. As Harvard Psychologist Dr. Waldinger explains, a possible cause for increased loneliness in the past few years, especially in the millennial generation, is that people are changing jobs and moving away from their original homes at an unprecedented rate (Kluger). While this is not inherently bad, it does make creating close relationships more difficult. Cohousing can facilitate a sense of belonging, which is a likely reason that in a study of 31 different cohorts, members of intentional communities on average scored the highest on the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Stevens). A likely mechanism for this is what Troy Evans, real estate developer-turned-founder of Commonspace –a cohousing community of 27 members in Syracuse, N.Y.– calls “collision space” (Kluger). Collision space is as simple as knowing you will cross paths with someone in your residence, and is an opportunity to have a quick chat to check in on fellow community members, something that people living alone often crave. As one community member Brian Stark, a married father of two, describes, “You almost have to assume that someone may stop to chat with you when you’re coming or going…It took some getting used to but when we’re in a hurry for school or a meeting, we’ve learned to explain our rush and connect another time.” (Kluger). Though living in a cohousing community may mean that one has to factor in a couple extra minutes to get in or out the door, the psychological and social benefits of seeing a familiar smiling face or having an uplifting chat after a hard day of work are invaluable.
As global reports of loneliness are rising, so is the temperature of the planet. Climate change is just as much of a pressing social problem, if not even more so, than loneliness. Sustainable and equitable communities are inevitably at risk when the resources and planet we live on are at risk. Moreover, disadvantaged communities are often the first to feel the unsustainable and unjust implications of accelerated climate change in a large part caused by powerful countries and leaders turning a blind eye. In the words of Bjorn Grinde, one of the chief scientists at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, intentional cohousing can be a way to, “organize society in a way that caters to human well-being and at the same time saves the environment” (Grinde). One study found that intentional community members have, “strong social connections and a meaningful existence spent in nature, not to mention a much smaller carbon footprint than average people” (Stevens). As GPaul Blundell of the FIC describes “intense cooperation significantly boosts quality of life relative to cost of living” (Blundell) revealing that cohousing can be a more equitable living option, especially for those on the margins. Cohousing communities are often more sustainable because members can hold each other accountable to reducing their carbon footprint, such as participating in clothing exchanges, carpools, and buying locally. Intentional communities often involve sharing resources such as electricity, heating, home maintenance tools, a community garden, and even cars, which is by nature more environmentally friendly. Moreover, cohousing communities are more socially and financially accessible and sustainable because sharing resources with others means less individual costs.
Skeptics may say that cohousing communities are idealized utopias that are not realistic. However, studies show that, ”a business or organization can be both directed and managed in a non-hierarchical, democratic, and cooperative way” (Blundell). Though it can be argued that given humans’ sometimes selfish motivations for money or private reward, the compromise and cooperation necessary for cohousing communities to work is infeasible. However, human motivation is complex. Though more difficult to find than shiny rewards like money and power, the collaboration that cohousing communities foster provides more virtuous motivation like purpose and value, that humans innately want to be driven by (Blundell). With the right balance of ground-up leadership and the cultivation of a communal sense of belonging and purpose, cohousing communities can be realistic means of thriving communities.
As aforementioned, out of the approximately 600 intentional communities in the United States (IC.org), the selectivity of the common principles and duties of a cohousing community vary from depending on the type of cohousing community to community. One assumption made about cohousing communities is that they are rural, dissident, exclusive, and strictly religious. There is the concern of cohousing communities becoming ‘culty’, cut off and exclusive, undermining, and in fact having a harmful effect on, creating sustainable and just communities. However, these are fringe groups of the intentional cohousing movement, only a fractional percentage of the hundreds of cohousing communities nationally. Furthermore, in order for cohousing communities to be a feasible solution to problems hindering sustainable and just community, a modern and inclusive approach must be taken.
Bridge Meadows Multigenerational Housing Community, a nonprofit in Portland, Oregon, is taking precisely this approach and seeing restorative and revitalizing results. Bridge Meadows prioritizes affordable housing –especially for minorities–, creating a sense of purpose through encouraging reciprocal community building between elders and children, and the cultivation of green communal spaces. Renee Mosely, associate director at Bridge Meadows, explains their emphasis on reciprocity: “to be able to give and receive is what makes our communities strong” (Hargrove 29). For example, one child was having difficulty learning to read in school, but their single parent felt stretched too thin. As a result of Bridge Meadows’ community culture of cooperative give-and-take, an older neighbor stepped in to tutor the child. The benefits were fourfold: the child learned to read, the parent saved both time and money, the elderly neighbor felt a tremendous sense of purpose and satisfaction, and a ‘safety net’ of sorts was built between community members (Hargrove 27). One essential item to Bridge Meadows’ success is their ‘community agreement’ posted in common spaces, which is a set of values “created in collaboration with community members”, necessary to provide “common ground to communicate, especially when there are differences” (Hargrove 28). The other critical component that allows this community to flourish is the cultivated social purpose that is the ‘glue’ that binds the community together despite the inevitable differences between community members (Hargrove 28). If committed to inclusivity and responsibility, cohousing communities can be successful anywhere by offering a sustainable housing and social remedy.
With the benefits of membership in a cohousing community come some expectations and responsibilities. Benefits include shared babysitting services, gardens, games, and even vacations (Kluger). Expectations include, to varying extents depending on different cohousing communities, joining a committee to help the community to run smoothly, helping to maintain the space, and being open to and building intentional relationships with other community members. Editor Jeffery Kluger, in his article ‘Everyone Needs Someone Else’, encapsulates the beauty of cohousing communities: “no one will come pester you to play a pick-up game you don’t want to play or join a committee you don’t want to join. But when you need the community –because…a baby is sick or you’re just plain lonely…– it’s there for you.” (Kluger). Furthermore, cohousing communities can provide “diverse, cross-generational communities that can come together in solidarity to help solve a community need, such as LGBTQ support, or care for the aging Boomer generation” (Kluger). Cohousing communities can also help young adults transitioning to living on their own, like in the case of Rose Bear Don’t Walk, a 23-year-old Native American woman attending university for forestry, who appreciates the communal support as a result of her membership at Commonspace cohousing community (Kluger). Ultimately, in the words of Jeffery Kluger, agreeing to a few “long meetings and compromises are a small price” to pay for the social, emotional, and practical benefits of living in a cohousing community.
Cohousing communities are the most effective model to create vibrant, just, and sustainable communities. Done well, intentional communities offer solutions to some of society’s most pressing issues. Intentional communities decrease loneliness and increase happiness and purpose, also increasing civic engagement and accountability. Also, cohousing communities can support marginalized people groups, and are a more environmentally friendly living model. Studies show that intentional communities are a practical and effective way to provide what our increasingly disconnected, inequitable, and unsustainable society needs. As the goals of the FIC state, cohousing communities can transform, “loneliness into belonging and meaning…economic inequality into cooperative economy…and climate crisis into sustainable ecological design” (IC.org), to create more just and sustainable communities spanning all over the world.
Works Cited
Blundell, GPaul. “Back to the City!” Foundation for Intentional Community, 25 Nov. 2017, https://www.ic.org/back-to-the-city/.
Grinde, Bjørn. “Happiness in communal life: A scientific project.” Communities 172 (2016): 80. https://www.proquest.com/openview/04fb56ffa86381aa9a15206bf36833d0/1?cbl=48 912&pq-origsite=gscholar&parentSessionId=v%2BT3YeavV4%2BhlIfAMbFJztFlv1mnb 82jlwDJwEd4ZrY%3D
Mariani, Mike. “The new generation of self-created utopias.” The New York Times Magazine, 16 (2020).
Metcalf, B. “Utopian Struggle: Preconceptions and Realities of Intentional Communities Realizing Utopia: Ecovillage Endeavors and Academic Approaches. (pp. 21-29).” Munich, Germany Rachel Carson Center Perspectives (2012).
Hargrove, Nikkya. “Planting the Seeds of Belonging.” Taproot, 10 Mar. 2022, pp. 26–29.
Kluger, Jeffrey. “Everyone Needs Someone Else: Why Americans of All Ages Are Coming Together in ‘Intentional Communities’.” Time.com, 3 Nov. 2017, https://time.com/intentional-communities/.
Schiffer, Steven Jay; “Glocalized” Utopia, Community-Building, and the Limits of Imagination. Utopian Studies. 1 February 2018; 29 (1): 67–87. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/utopianstudies.29.1.0067
Stevens, Krista. “Science Says Life Is Better in Intentional Communities.” Longreads, Longreads, 27 Jan. 2020, https://longreads.com/2020/01/27/science-says-life-is-better-in-intentional-communities/.
Tina, Cynthia. “How Have Intentional Communities Fared through the Pandemic?” Foundation for Intentional Community, 19 Nov. 2020, https://www.ic.org/intentional-communitiesfared-pandemic/.