Alternative Housing for New Households
－An Investigation of Receptivity to Collaborative Housing in the Capital District Area, New York－
새로운 가족형태를 위한 주거유형
- 뉴욕주 수도권지역의 협력주거에 관한 수용성 분석 -
Chung, Il-Hoon Associate Research Fellow, KRIHSI. Introduction
1. Statement of Problem 2. Research Objectives 3. Conceptual Frame
II. Historical Review of Collaborative Housing
1. Common Characteristics of Cohousing Communities 2. Danish Cohousing
III. Methodology 1. Data Collection
2. Procedures for Data Analysis
IV. Description of the Sample 1. Households
2. Housing Intermediary
V. Results and Discussion 1. Results
2. Discussion VI. Conclusions
목 차
Contents
I. Introduction
The old suburban dream is increasingly unsuitable to today’s culture and lifestyle.
American household makeup has changed dramatically, the work place and work force have been transformed and average family income growth is shrinking. But Americans continue to build post World War II suburbs as if families were large and had only one bread- winner, as if the jobs were all downtown, and as if land and energy were endless. Housing developments in the United States and local zoning laws segregate age groups, income groups, and ethnic groups, as well as family types. But it is time to redefine the American Dream. Americans must make it more acces- sible to nation’s diverse population: singles, the elderly, the working poor, single-parent families, and young married couples with chil- dren who can no longer afford the post World War II type of life.
Cities and housing in this country have been designed to satisfy a nation of predomi- nantly traditional families; households con- taining a working husband, a housewife and child(ren). But the range of life styles and household types is growing. Nowadays only a small percentage of American families include a male breadwinner, a nonemployed housewife
and two or more children under eighteen.
“The predominant family type is the two- earner family. The fastest growing family type is the single-parent family, and nine out of ten single parents are women. Almost a quarter of all households consist of one person living alone, be they young singles or the elderly”. 1)
Yet Americans have not acknowledged that the cities and housing built predominantly for the traditional families are no longer appropri- ate today.
Single-family detached housing is the hous- ing type which seems to be preferred over- whelmingly by all Americans, regardless of dif- ferences in personal characteristics. Yet, if the ownership of a conventional single-family detached house becomes problematic in the future, we can expect certain types of alterna- tive housing to be relatively acceptable.2)It is clear that certain groups of people cannot buy the houses that they want, and many Ameri- cans who had already bought houses found that they couldn’t afford to move or even to stay where they are.
1. Statement of Problem
The seriousness of housing crisis begins with young couples, who even if they are both employed, often cannot qualify for a mortgage.
1) Hayden, D. (1984) Redesigning the American dream : the future of housing, work and family life. New York : Norton, p40
2) Termblay, K.R., Jr.& Dillman, D.A.(1983) Beyond the American housing dream : accomodation to the 1980s.
Lanham, MD : University Press of America.
To lower their housing costs, they must com- mute long distances to remote suburbs where land is cheaper. At the same time, the elderly who live on fixed incomes, either alone or in couples often find they cannot meet the prop- erty taxes, heating bills and the demands for physical maintenance of single-family homes.
In the 1990s, the ratio of growth rates for older versus younger households is expected to be three to one.3)New York State’s older pop- ulation is the second largest in the nation.
Single-parent families often lack the sup- port system of social services that such a fami- ly requires if the parent is holding a paying job. Infant care, day care, after school care, public transportation to allow older children to move about independently, closeness to stores and health services; all these amenities are almost always lacking in neighborhoods where the housing was originally designed for house- holds with a full-time housewife caring for a husband and children. By 1988, 24% of all families with children were headed by a moth- er, 61.4% of all women worked and 66% of single mothers were employed.4)
Two-earner couples experience many of the
same strains if the employed wife is also expected to carry the greater burden of family tasks. In New York State, the percentage of females over 16 years of age in the labor force is currently about 55 percent.5)The image in the United States of the traditional family - a married couple with young children, with an employed husband and a homemaker wife - that characterized the 1950s and 1960s does not match today’s demographic realities.6)
New forms of housing must be produced to fit the pocketbooks and lifestyles of a variety of households. The increasing number of house- holds will put pressure on the supply of hous- ing units. Changes in household characteris- tics and circumstances will change consumer perceptions and preferences for housing styles, sizes, etc.
I dare to suggest in this paper that collabo- rative housing7) is an appropriate model to mitigate the housing problem which arises from the deeply embedded ideals of individual- ism and single-family housing in American culture. In collaborative housing, each house- hold has its own self-contained housing unit (including private bathrooms and kitchen)
3) Newmam, S. and Reschorsky,J.(1987) Federal Policy and Mobility of Older Homeowners. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 6, pp. 404-405.
4) Sprague, J.F.(1991) More Than Housing : Lifeboats for Women and Children. Boston : Butterworth Arcitecture 5) See 1990 Census Data.
6) Franck, K.A.& Ahrentzen, S.(1991) New households new housing. New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold.
7) Collabrative housing : Each household has its own house or apartment and one share in the common facilities, which typically include a fully equipped kitchen, play areas, and meeting rooms. Residents share cooking, clean- ing, and gardening on a rotaeing basis. By woking together and combining their resources, collaborative housing residents can have the advantages of a private home and the convenience of shared services and amenities(Fromm, 1991, p7).
and share in the common facilities, which typ- ically include a fully equipped kitchen, play areas, and meeting rooms. Social and support- ive services, such as child and elder care, may be included. In other words, residents may have the advantages of a private home and the convenience of shared services and ameni- ties. The sharing of costs allows for amenities that no resident could afford alone, such as a large living room, a garden, guest room, play room for children, or an excellent location.
Mutual advantages resulting from sharing child care, elder care, carpool and household responsibilities(such as grocery shopping, preparing meals, and cleaning) can not only give residents more time for other activities but can also help to alleviate economic bur- dens.8)The most important thing to realize in collaborative housing is that the shared spaces can only accommodate and encourage interac- tion between residents. Social ties are absent in most neighborhoods today, providing little incentive for people to stay.
2. Research Objectives
This study was particularly relevant for the Capital District areas in New York State in which community perceptions for the collabo- rative housing and housing delivery systems
for this type of alternative housing are not well developed. Although the areas focus on the State Capital, Albany, it is really a metropoli- tan area of three central cities (Albany, Sch- enectady and Troy) and a large suburban pop- ulation. Strategies were developed to assess the perceptions of housing intermediaries9) and those who need affordable housing. The find- ings of this study can be applied to other areas of the country.
One of the the main objectives was to examine perceptions of the people residing in various housing arrangements toward collabo- rative housings and preferences. Demographic characteristics of households in the Capital District study areas (Albany, Troy and Sch- enectady) of New York State were also identi- fied in order to predict respondents’receptive- ness to collaborative housing concepts.
Still another objective was to isolate the fac- tors that might be considered institutional and infrastructural barriers or incentives for inno- vations in housing developments in sampled communities in Capital District Areas. It was, therefore, necessary to appraise the opinions of housing intermediaries in regard to collabora- tive housing, housing knowledge, and the degree of their involvement in housing develop- ment in Capital District Areas. The results of the questionnaire survey were analyzed on its
8) Franck, K.A.& Ahrentzen, S. 1991. New households new housing. New York : Van Nostand Reinhold.
9) Housing intermediaries : Those persons involved in the preparation, production, and distribution of housing and/or who provided housing related services, including lenders, builders, elected and appointed dfficials, mem- bers of boards, councils, and commissions.
basis of their socio-demographic characteristics.
3. Conceptual Frame
In the attempt to explain the receptiveness of households to collaborative housing initia- tives, this study examined households inter- est, motivation, preferences to share living environments and housing arrangements, and preference of housing types, as well as certain demographic characteristics. The researcher examined the dependent and inde- pendent variables according to the conceptual frame. Thus, households’receptivity to collab- orative housing initiatives was considered to be a function of (a) motivation of certain situ- ations in collaborative housing, (b) preferences to share living environments, (c) preferences about collaborative housing arrangements, (d) preference of existing housing types, (e) pre- ferred housing type, and (f) demographic characteristics. The researcher also identified four target groups and a non-target group to investigate differences in their receptiveness.
II. Historical Review of Collaborative Housing
In this study, collaborative housing differs from collective housing and other types of shared housing in the degree of autonomy and privacy of the occupants, but it is similar in
other respects. The concept of collaborative housing I am examining was based purely on the Danish Cohousing10)model.
1. Common Characteristics of Cohousing Communities
Cohousing communities can be defined by four basic characteristics.
1) Participatory process
Residents participate in the planning and design of the development so that it directly responds to their needs.
2) Neighborhood design
The physical design encourages a sense of community. By emphasizing aspects that increase the possibilities for social contact in daily life, the design helps maintain a sense of community over time.
3) Extensive common facilities
The common house is designed for daily use, to supplement private living areas. Resi- dents may also share dining hall, workshops, guest rooms, garden space, children’s play areas, and physical fitness facilities. Although individual dwellings are designed to be self- sufficient and each has its own kitchen, the common facilities, and particular common din- ners, are an important aspect of community life both for social and practical reasons.
4) Complete resident management
Residents take complete responsibility for the
10) Cohousing is a trademark of McCamant and Durrett.
ongoing management of the community, organiz- ing cooperatively to meet their changing needs.
2. Danish Cohousing
Pioneered primarily in Denmark and now being adopted in other countries, the collabo- rative housing concept reestablishes many of the advantages of traditional villages within the context of late twentieth-century life.
“The first collaborative housing develop- ment was built in 1972 outside Copenhagen, Denmark, by 27 families who wanted a greater sense of community than was avail- able in suburban subdivisions or apartment complexes. They desired a neighborhood with a child-friendly environment and the opportu- nity for cooperation in daily household func- tions such as laundry, meals, and child care.
Today, collaborative housing has become an accepted housing option in Denmark, with new projects being planned and built in ever - increasing numbers.”11)
The motivation behind developing collabo- rative housing was to create a socially sup- portive and connected community for the con- temporary nuclear family. A general rethink- ing of life-styles and community began in the 1960s. In the four years since Gudmand- Hoyer had first gathered his friends to discuss housing alternatives, western societies had
begun to experience a drastic shift in values.
In those years, collaboratives or communes, often based on radical political and social ide- als, sprouted throughout North America and Europe. The Danish collective movement grew in towns and cities, and thousands of urban collectives formed. These ideals influenced many people who faced the problems of their jobs, households, and children. But for most couples with children, collectives were not a realistic long-term option. The cooperative lifestyle of the emerging collaborative housing concept promised greater support for the needs of the nuclear family.
The collaborative housing form was influ- enced by traditional Danish low-density hous- ing arrangements. The Danish government has a long history of concern for housing, not only providing capital but supporting new and innovative solutions to housing needs.
In the 1960s, as a reaction against the tall apartment towers that were then being con- structed, tenants demanded more participa- tion in the design of housing. The result was a new housing type: densely built low-rise units. Danish cohousing combines a way of living with this specific dense and low form.
The dwellings were built as traditional owner- occupied housing, with shared facilities in a separate common house. Since then, two other forms of tenure, aside from the privately
11) McCamant, K.& Durrett, C. 1988. Cohousing : a contemporary approach to housing ourselves. California : Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press, p16.
owned, have been developed: rentals and cooperatives. “In 1982, Denmark passed a law that makes low-income housing easier to finance through cooperative ownership. This housing is subsidized by the state, with strict budget and limits on dwelling size, making limited equity collaborative housing affordable to a wider range of people.”12)
As a relatively homogeneous culture, the Danish people share many traditions, values, and expectations that provide an immediate cohesion not readily available in the United States. The multicultural society of the United States, by contrast, presents unique chal- lenges for the development of collaborative housing. Even though Americans have values, beliefs, and attitudes that are not the same as those of Danes or other Europeans, collabora- tive housing can be appropriate and applicable in the United States as well. Today, Ameri- cans are experiencing drastic changes in demographic, economic, and even family life that can make new forms of housing appeal- ing.
Collaborative communities are beginning to appear in the United States. Some develop- ments, although they are only a handful, incorporate many of the same ideas as those in Denmark. Collaboration has worked, and continues to work, in the United States. Simi-
lar types of European communities hold out the possibility to Americans that collaborative housing might work. Collaborative housing offers people an opportunity to overcome the current pattern of segregation - by interest, age, income, and household composition - that they deem undesirable. “Despite the promis- ing prospects, barriers to developing collabora- tive housing remain: the conservative biases of financial institutions and planning depart- ments, legal and liability issues, and general skepticism about a new idea.”13)The local gov- ernment is conspicuously absent in the devel- opment of most of the United States exam- ples, unlike most European models. The diffi- culty of obtaining government support is a common thread running through the lower- income developments. The fact that collabora- tive housing is a small-scale model based on private initiative rather than on government policy makes it especially applicable to the American market.
European developments receive direct gov- ernment support. But lack of government sup- port in the United States has required com- munities to rely on their members’resources.
Dwellings have tended to be expensive, beyond the reach of those with incomes below the median. Many of the people best served by this new housing type - the elderly, single-
12) Fromm, D. 1991. Collaborative communities : cohousing, central, and other new forms of housing with shared facilities. New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold, p22.
13) McCamant, K.& Durrett, C. 1988. Cohousing : a contemporary approach to housing ourselves. California : Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press, p200.
parent, singles, and young couples with chil- dren - are shut out of this option.
III. Methodology
1. Data Collection
All desired data for this study were collect- ed through use of a mail survey and inter- views. The questionnaire was mailed to all selected households and was handed out to housing intermediaries in each of the three communities in the Capital District Region.
The household questionnaire consists of 25 questions. The proposed question structure was a combination of open and close-ended questions, but the majority of questions are close-ended because of the disadvantages and difficulties in statistical analysis of open-ended questions
The housing intermediary questionnaire consists of 50 questions. Suggestions for order- ing and numbering questions were considered when the questionnaire was constructed.
Question structure is very similar to the household questionnaire, with a combination of open- and close-ended questions.
2. Procedures for Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sci- ences (SPSS-PC) Data Analysis System was used to obtain descriptive data and in the multiple regression analysis.
Frequency distributions and percentages were used for the descriptive analyses of the data. Crosstabulation procedures were also used to assess the relationship between the variables. Although examination of the various row and column percentages in a crosstabula- tion was a useful step in studying the relation- ship between the variables, row and column percentage did not allow for testing of that relationship. For this purpose, it was useful to consider an index (Pearson Chi-Square) that measures the extent of association as well as statistical tests of the hypothesis. Multiple regression procedures were used for testing the statistical model. Testing was conducted to predict factors influencing the dependent vari- able: degree of preference for collaborative housing initiatives.
IV. Description of the Sample
1. Households
Preliminary analyses of the three types of respondents’(interest group, non-interest group, and non-interest but have intention group) receptivity to collaborative housing ini- tiatives collapsed respondents into two groups titled, “target group”and “non-target group”. An examination of the household’s demo- graphic characteristics revealed the differences between target and non-target groups. The educational attainments for the non-target group were much higher than the target
group, as well as the differences in incomes.
While all the non-target group’s respondents were employed full-time, about 57 percent of the target group’s respondents were employed full-time. The majority of the non-target group’s respondents lived in single-family housing (75.0%). Comparing with the non- target group, only about thirty percent (30.2%) of the target group’s respondents lived in single-family housing. Apartment was the highest percentage of housing type for tar- get group (41.5%).
Household’s interest in collaborative hous- ing was basically low. But comparing with both groups, the target group had a much higher interest than the non-target group.
While the primary reason for wanting to live in collaborative housing was saving money, a preference for single-family housing was the dominant reason for not wanting to live in col- laborative housing.
Household’s motivation of certain situa- tions in collaborative housing varied. Respon- dents generally perceived reduction of con- struction costs to be agreeable. But their gen- eral perception of reduction of time and effort, enjoyment of using common facilities, and par- ticipation in common dinner would not be motivation in living in collaborative housing.
The personal receptiveness of the respon- dents to share their living environments with various groups of people was generally low.
The target group’s receptiveness to share their living environments with singles was dis-
tinctively higher than the non-target group.
Although there were many missing cases, the personal preference of respon- dents to collaborative housing arrange- ments (See Figure 1) for the specific pur- pose of finding appropriate collaborative housing prototype was elicited. The major- ity of the target group’s respondents pre- ferred (D) type; each group has their own building but they share common facilities together in their collaborative housing complex. The non-target group’s respon- dents preferred (E) type; each group shares common facilities and live in collab- orative housing complex without any building designation.
The respondents’preference of existing housing types was varied. Among existing housing types, the majority of the respondents disliked mobile homes. The respondents’pref- erence for apartments was very different for target and non-target group. The target group’s preference for apartments was much higher than non-target group. Both groups preferred townhouses without any distinction.
The response rate for the degree of prefer- ence for collaborative housing was basically low. Also, an elicited respondents’overall pref- erence with respect to collaborative housing initiatives were considerably unfavorable.
Although the respondents’overall preferences were unfavorable, there were differences between target and non-target groups with respect to degree of preference for collaborative
housing. While the target group’s degree of preference was far more favorable than the non-target group, the non-target group’s degree of preference was far less unfavorable than the target group.
Single-family houses were dominantly ranked as the most preferred housing type without considerable difference between target
and non-target groups. Also, townhouses were ranked to be the second most preferred hous- ing type.
2. Housing Intermediary
Nearly one-half of the housing intermedi- aries’degree of preference for collaborative
<Figure> Collaborative housing arrangements common facilities
Only one type of group lives in this collaborative housing building such as
① elderly, ② single-parent family, ③ single, or ④ young couple with children.
(A)
common facilities
All four specified groups (elderly single-parent family, single, and young couple with children)live together in this collaborative housing building.
(B) ① elderly
④ young couple
③ single
② single-parent
Each group has their own building and common facilities, but every group lives in the same collaborative housing complex.
(C)
common facilities
① elderly
④ young couple with children
③ singles
② single-parent families
Each group has their own building but they share common facilities together in their collaborative housing complex (D)
common facilities
①+②+③+④
①+② +③+④
①+②+③+④
Each group shares common facilities,and live in collaborative housing complex without any building designation.
(E)
(F) Don′t know / Not applicable
common facilities
①+②+
③+④
housing was elicited as favorable. According to housing involvement type, housing authority officers’degree of preference was higher than other types of housing involvement.
An examination of the housing intermedi- aries’demographic characteristics revealed a very homogeneous sample consisting of white people in the employable age range between 24 and 61 years of age who were highly edu- cated, employed full-time, married with an annual household income of more than
$30,000. As purposefully selected, the respon- dents were experienced in housing matters and had considerable work experience in the study community. The majority of the housing intermediaries lived in single-family houses.
The majority of the respondents had an interest in locating collaborative housing in their city. Respondents biggest reason for wanting to locate collaborative housing in their community was that it would be good housing for special group such as elderly, single-parent.
single, and etc. Comparing with households’
primary concerns in buying or renting a home, environment was ranked as the greatest con- cern by the housing intermediaries. Financial capacity, the first choice by the households, was the second greatest concern for the hous- ing intermediaries.
Housing intermediary’s motivation of cer- tain situations in collaborative housing varied.
Respondents generally perceived every situa- tions would be more than agree, except reduc- ing household chores and reducing time and
effort for the household. Particularly, govern- ment subsidy was the greatest factor for their motivation.
The personal receptiveness of the respon- dents to share their living environments with various groups of people in five different cases was highly acceptable. Sharing with elderly people was reported as the lowest by a 55.5%
acceptance level.
The personal preference of respondents to collaborative housing arrangements for the specific purpose of finding appropriate collabo- rative housing prototype was elicited.
Although there was not a considerable differ- ence in terms of preference rates among the suggested arrangements (See <Figure>), a greater proportion of the respondents preferred (E) type; each group shares common facilities and lives in a collaborative housing complex without any building designation. This choice was the same as the non-target household group’s choice.
The support for housing programs was gen- erally high. The programs related to rental assistance for low-income households received comparatively lower support. The homeowner- ship programs and special needs housing pro- grams received the greatest support with nearly three quarters of the respondents.
Fifty percent(50.0%) or more of the respon- dents perceived only 3 of 10 housing related situations to be an incentive for promoting adequate and affordable housing in the com- munity: availability of housing for elderly
’
(53.4%), residents concern for the improve- ment of housing quality (70.0%), and commu- nity officials’concern for the improvement of housing quality (56.7%). Forty percent (40.0%) or more of the respondents perceived four housing related situations to be barriers to providing adequate and affordable housing in the community: availability of housing for low-income people (53.3%), consumer accep- tance of multi-family housing (60%), supply of available land for housing (63.3%), and zon- ing regulation (46.7%).
The 30 housing intermediaries’perceptions of future housing type demands were obtained. Low-income housing was ranked as the housing type to be in greatest need for the next five years. Also, low-income housing was perceived by the respondents to be one of the two types of housing for which there would be a substantial demand in the near future.
Housing for the elderly was the second hous- ing type. The respondents’perceptions of future housing type demands for mobile homes were the lowest.
V. Results and Discussion
1. Results
The first hypothesis stated that the recep- tivity to collaborative housing initiatives was not a function of motivation of certain situa- tions in collaborative housing, preferences to share living environments, preferences about
collaborative housing arrangements, prefer- ence of existing housing types, preferred hous- ing type, and demographic characteristics.
Multiple regression analyses using the step- wise procedure was conducted. The signifi- cance level specified for variable entry was .50.
Only two variables were accepted into the equation before problems with multicollineari- ty appeared.
Multicollinearity refers to high correlations among the independent variables. Multi- collinearity is indicated in the SPSS-PC pro- gram by the tolerance of a variable and the variance inflation factor (VIF). The tolerance of variable i is defined as 1-Ri2, where Ri is the multiple correlation coefficient when the ith independent variable is predicted from the other independent variables. Therefore only two variables were entered into the equation:
TIME and FACLTY (Table). These two vari- ables explained about 54% of the total vari- ance in the degree of preference to collabora- tive housing. The first hypothesis was rejected indicating a significant regression equation and showed that a functional relationship was established (F=27.45386,P< 0.0001).
This relationship was good as indicated by the percent of variance explained (R2=.54).
The second hypothesis stated receptivity of households to collaborative housing initiatives is related with the households’socio-demo- graphic characteristics. It can be maintained that four specified groups (target group) are more receptive to collaborative housing initia-
’
tives than other socio-demographic groups (non-target group): they are elderly, singles, single-parents and young couples (less than 34 years old) with children.
Crosstabulation procedures were used to assess the relationship between the variables.
Although the respondents’overall preferences were not ideally favorable, there were differ- ences between the target and non-target groups with respect to degree of preference for collaborative housing. While the target group’s degree of preference was far more favorable than the non-target group’s, the non-target group’s degree of preference was far less unfa- vorable than target group’s.
2. Discussion
The data revealed that the function includ- ed motivation in terms of reducing time and effort for households, and in terms of enjoying the use of common facilities. And although the target group’s degree of preference proved to be far more favorable than the non-target group’s the elicited households’overall prefer- ences with respect to collaborative housing ini-
tiatives were considerably unfavorable.
Even though selected small number of housing intermediaries were surveyed, the majority of the respondents had an interest in locating collaborative housing in their city.
Particularly, the respondents’biggest reason for wanting to locate collaborative housing in their community was that it would be good housing for special group such as elderly peo- ple, single-parent families, singles, etc. Also nearly one-half of the housing intermediaries’
degree of personal preference to collaborative housing was elicited as favorable. From these results, it appears that collaborative housing has a very positive perspective among individ- uals who adopt policy implementations as well as develop housing opportunities for the target groups in the Capital District Region.
VI. Conclusions
Collaborative housing which is the central theme of this study is a relatively new housing issue. Although there is extensive background information about social issues related to housing, very little work has been done on
<Table> Factors affecting degree of preference to collaborative housing
Factors B VALUE T P
TIME FACLTY
0.3642 0.3068
3.142 2.803
0.0029 0.0073 Note : From the above, TIME = perception that household time and effort would be reduced
FACLTY = perception for enjoyment of common facilities
F = 27.4539 R2= .54
investigating collaborative housing in the United States.
The survey results show that certain seg- ments of the population in the Capital District Region of New York State are interested in the collaborative housing in varying degree. These include: the elderly, single-parents, single per- sons, and young couples with children. It was found that they are attracted to collaborative housing by its unique architectural design pos- sibilities. For instance, a typical collaborative housing complex would include such common facilities as a dining room with extensive cook- ing equipments, a childcare facility, guest rooms, a workshop, outdoor recreation facili- ties, a common vegetable garden, and sepa- rate family yards. The previously-mentioned demographic groups are motivated by financial considerations and are particularly inclined to utilize these unique features of collaborative housing. The study revealed that the lower cost of home ownership and saving money were the most important reasons for choosing this form of housing. Findings indicate that affordability is the most critical issue when considering collaborative housing and should become a housing option afforded to the American people. The concern over housing affordability becomes acute as middle-class households, especially young urban profession- als, either begin to experiencing difficulty in realizing the American dream of home-owner- ship or find themselves spending a dispropor- tionately large share of their incomes on hous-
ing. Housing affordability encompasses two respectives: home-ownership and rental hous- ing. Both of these respectives affect middle- income, young urban professional and moder- ately low-income households. No longer is the housing affordability issue solely the province of very-low-income households. It is now a middle-class issue.
Reducing construction costs and participat- ing in group activities were found to be a posi- tive motivating factor towards considering col- laborative housing. When comparing the strongly-interested group with the more hesi- tant group (mildly-interested group), signifi- cant differences existed between them in terms of the use of common facilities. Over fifty percent of the strongly-interested group perceived themself enjoying using common facilities and would be motivated to participate in collaborative housing for this reason, but less than thirteen percent of the hesitant group.The lack of experience and/or informa- tion about common facilities within collabora- tive housing may be a possible reason to account for this result.
The study showed a strong preference for single family housing among those surveyed.
It is well known that Americans tend to have a powerful attachment to the single family home. They cherish privacy and the social sta- tus this form of housing confers upon them. It would be very difficult to break this tradition.
This study also includes an assessment of barriers and incentives to the development of
collaborative housing from the aspect of policy implementations. According to the survey of housing intermediaries, those professionals who are engaged in decision-making relating to housing delivery system in the community, are generally unaware about collaborative housing.
They were not well informed about its exis- tence and popularity within the European countries. However, once they were made aware of this type of housing through personal contact, the majority of surveyed housing inter- mediaries responded favorably to the idea of introducing this form of housing complex in their communities (a positive response as high as 80 percent of those survey). The majority of the respondents reported that the most vital reason for wanting to locate collaborative hous- ing in their community was the provision of housing for special groups. This response was directly related with housing intermediaries’
perceptions of future housing demands. Low- income housing was ranked as the housing type to be in greatest demand for the next five years and housing for elderly people was the second housing type.
This favorable reaction by the housing intermediaries does not however imply that a collaborative housing development would be made in their communities in the near future.
There are still too many obstacles to the intro- duction of innovative housing. Consumer acceptance of multi-family housing and supply of available land for housing were found to be major barriers for obtaining adequate and
affordable housing in the study areas. Yet resi- dents’and community officials’concern for the improvement of housing quality were found to be the major incentives.
Appelbaum, R. P. 1985. Swedish housing in the postwar period. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 21, 221-244.
Becker, F. D. 1977. Housing Messages. Stroudsburg:
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.
Bratt, R. G., Hartman, C. and Meyerson, A., editors.
1986. Critical Perspectives on Housing. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Dillman, D. A., Dillman, J.J. and Schwalbe, M.L. 1981.
Strength of housing norms and willingness to accept housing alternatives. Housing and Society, 6, 123- 132.
Donovan, T. & Neiman, M. 1992. Community social sta- tus, suburban growth, and local government restric- tions on residential development. Urban Affairs Quar- terly, 28, 323-336.
Feldman, M. M. A. 1992. Colloquium series: the bank- ing crises and the future of housing, University of Rhode Island, autumn 1991. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16, 641-647.
Fink, A and Kosecoff, J. 1985. 9/ How to conduct sur- veys: A step-by Step Guide. California: Sage Publica- tions, Inc.
Fosler, R. S. 1990. Demographic change and the Ameri- can future. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Fowler, F. J. 1984. Survey research methods. California:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Franck, K. A. & Ahrentzen, S. 1991. New households new housing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Fromm, D. 1991. Collaborative communities: cohousing, central living, and other new forms of housing with shared facilities. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
References
Golany, G. 1975. Strategy for New Community Develop- ment in the United States. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.
Grigsby, W. G. 1990. Housing finance and subsidies in the United States. Urban Studies, 27, 831-845.
Hayden, D. 1984. Redesigning the American dream: the future of housing, work and family life. New York:
Norton.
Hoffman, E. P. 1991, Spring. Aid to families with depen- dent children and female poverty. Growth and Change, 22, 36-47.
Howenstine, E. J. 1983. Attacking housing costs: foreign policies and strategies. New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Center for Urban Policy Research.
Hughes, J. & Sternlieb, G. 1986. The future of Ameri- ca's housing. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Research.
Kemeny, J. 1992. Housing and social theory. London:
Routledge.
Lesser, R. C. 1982. The future of housing depends on adaptable builders. Real Estate Review, 12, 112, 115- 117.
Liblit, J., editor. 1964. Housing-The Cooperative Way.
New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc.
McCamant, K. & Durrett, C. 1988. Cohousing: a con- temporary approach to housing ourselves. California:
Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press.
Marcus, C.C. & Sarkissian, W. 1986. Housing as if peo- ple mattered. California: University of California Press.
New York State. 1990. NYS Housing programs: afford- able housing challenge for the nineties. New York State.
Plunz, R. 1990. A History of Housing in New York City.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Prosper, V. 1990. Housing Older New Yorkers: Housing Related Preferences of Older Persons. New York State: Office for the Aging.
Quercia, R. G. & Rohe, W. M. 1992. Housing adjust- ments among older home owners. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 28, 104-125.
Rudel, T. K. 1987. Housing price inflation, family growth, and the move from rented to owner occupied housing. Urban Studies, 24, 258-267.
Seidel, S. R. 1978. Housing costs and government regu- lations: confronting the regulatory maze. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Sindt, R.P. and Guy, D.C. 1985. Economics of rural housing: challenges and changes. Housing and Soci- ety, 12, 147-160.
Spain, D. 1990. The effect of residential mobility and household composition on housing quality. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 25, 659-683.
Sprague, J. F. 1991. More Than Housing: Lifeboats for Women and Children. Boston: Butterworth Architec- ture.
Sullivan, O. 1989. Housing tenure as a consumption- sector divide: a critical perspective. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 13, 183- 199.
Tremblay, K.R., Jr., & Beamish, J. O. and Sweaney, A.
L. 1987. Identifying nonmetropolitan communities with innovative housing. Housing and Society, 14, 70-74.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1980, 1990.
Demography and housing. Washington, DC: Govern- ment Printing Office.
Wright, G. 1981. Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America. Cambridge: MIT Press.
핵가족화와 전후 소위‘American Dream’으로 대변되며 반세기 이상 지속되어 온 전형적인 주택개발 이 90년대를 지나 21세기를 향하며 한계에 직면하게 되었다. 90년도 이후 급격히 증가하고 있는 비전통 적인 가족구조(노령화, 편부모, 독신자, 맞벌이부부의 증가 등)와 더불어 경제, 사회적 변화로 인하여 새 로운 주거형태가 요구되고 있다. 따라서 본 연구의 목적은 사회인구학적 특성을 바탕으로 다양한 형태의 주거환경에 살고 있는 미국 뉴욕주 수도권지역 거주자들의 일반적인 주거형태와 공동생활구역을 강조한 협력주거(Collaborative Housing)형태에 관한 경제적, 사회적, 물리적 측면에서의 선호도와 수용성을 측 정, 분석하는 데 있다.
아울러 연구지역 내에 혁신적 주거유형을 도입함에 있어서 제도적이고 사회구조적인 장애 혹은 장려요 인 등을 도출해 내기 위하여 주거지개발 과정에 직, 간접으로 관련되어 있는 중재자(건축가, 금융대출담 당자, 주택관련 시공무원, 비영리단체)들의 개발에 관한 전반적인 지식과 그들의 참여도, 그리고 협력주 거에 대한 의식 등을 조사하였다.
일반세대주들의 협력주거안에 대한 수용성은,
(a) 협력주거에 대한 동기 유발, (b) 공유생활환경에 대한 선택적 선호도, (c) 선호하는 협력주거 방법, (d) 현재 주위에서 찾을 수 있는 선호하는 주거형태, (e) 가장 선호하는 주거형태, (f) 사회인구학적 특성
과의 함수관계가 될 것으로 보았으며 상기의 (a)부터 (f)까지가 독립변수가 되고 종속변수는 협력주거 에 대한 선호정도가 된다. 연구목적상 네 개의 선택그룹(64세 이상 노인층, 독신, 편부모, 그리고 34세이 하의 젊은 부부)을 임의로 분류하여 비선택그룹과 비교하여 차이점을 조사하였다.
일반세대주들의 수용성과 (a)부터 (f)까지의 함수관계를 중회귀분석한 결과, 관계를 나타내는 두 개의 변수들이 54%의 변량을 설명하였으며 선택그룹과 비선택그룹의 교차분석결과는 선택그룹들의 협력주거 에 대한 선호도가 비선택그룹보다 훨씬 높은 것으로 나타났다.
비록 협력주거가 세대주의 시간과 노력을 줄일 수 있다는 동기유발과 공동시설을 즐기겠다는 변수들과 의 함수관계를 밝혀내고 선택그룹의 선호도가 비선택그룹보다 확연한 차이가 있음을 밝혀냈으나, 전체적 인 협력주거에 대한 선호도는 낮은 것으로 분석되었다. 그러나 소수이긴 하나 중재자들에 대한 조사에서 나타난 분석결과를 감안했을 때 연구지역 내에서의 협력주거의 개발가능성과 정책적 배려의 전망은 밝다 고 하겠다.
초 록
새로운 가족형태를 위한 주거유형 - 뉴욕주 수도권지역의 협력주거에 관한 수용성 분석 -
