Cohousing : problems and prospects for low-income communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winnipeg's North End neighbourhoods are experiencing significant decline in decent affordable housing units.Societal changes, including a shift away from the traditional nuclear family and need for single detached housing units, contribute to a call for new housing models.As well, governments increasingly reduced role in the provision of social housing has left third sector parties and non-profit housing organizations challenged with the task to develop affordable housing projects for low-income communities.This study explores non-profit housing organizations and the problems and prospects of developing cohousing projects for low-income communities.Cohousing is a relatively new housing typology that emerged from Denmark in the early 1970s.By working together and combining resources and energies, cohousing communities have the advantage of private homes and the convenience of shared services and amenities that enhance affordability by reducing household expenses.In reference to a cohousing case study proposed by one local non-profit housing provider, this thesis a) identifies barriers and opportunities to developing cohousing projects; b) explores the role(s) cohousing models play or are positioned to play in lowincome communities; and c) cultivates enhancement recommendations for non-profit housing groups interested in developing cohousing projects.The study includes findings from the proposed case study, a literature review and a series of qualitative interviews with case study and cohousing respondents.The literature review addresses related topics, such as the emergence of non-profit housing organizations in Canada, issues facing community-based non-profit housing organizations and cohousing projects in European and North American contexts.Through the empirical findings, it was established that a) cohousing is as much a process as it is a new housing model; b) non-profit housing organizafions best serve as facilitators to what should be a resident-or community-led cohousing process; and c) non-profit housing organizations require extensive internal and external supports to facilitate the planning and development of cohousing projects.Overall findings reveal that non-prof,rt housing organizations and low-income communities generally do not have the capacity nor the financial capital required to support collaborative cohousing planning processes and project costs associated with shared spaces and facilities.Consequently, this thesis argues for broader government support, additional resources and flexible funding for non-profit housing organizations to explore alternative housing models; facilitate the engagement of low-income communities in collaborative planning processes; and develop nev/ housing models for changing housing needs.DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my mother.Everything that has led up to this moment and the future that lies ahead are thanks to you.lll To begin, I would like to thank the North End Housing Project, for allowing me to document a snapshot of their endurance, commitment and pursuit of affordable housing for low-income communities.To the members of my advisory committee, thank you.To Dr. Lawrie Deane, thank you for sharing with me your knowledge, persistence and enthusiasm for community development.To Dr
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".