Abstract
In addition to the still significant suburbanization process, the Prague metropolitan area is also seeing the emergence of reurbanization. While existing studies in this field are mainly concerned with the resulting spatial patterns, the present work focuses on the process of selecting a new place of residence. This topic is of significance because of the importance of reflecting residents’ requirements and ideas in urban planning. The Alfarezidence residential project was inspired by the notion of cohousing and is located in the inner city. The aim of the study was to explore reasons that led participants to choose Alfarezidence, the alternatives they considered and the role Alfarezidence’s specific characteristics played in the decision-making process. A series of deep semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the results show that no participants chose Alfarezidence because of cohousing. Instead, they perceived the common areas, small scale and spatial layout to be desirable aspects; furthermore, accessibility, architectural layout, and character were also key to the decision-making process. Proximity to the workplace was also particularly important in prioritizing Alfarezidence over alternative family housing in the suburbs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Prepared by the Department of Socioeconomics of Housing of the Institute of Sociology at the Czech Academy of Sciences.
JKA Cohousing (Jiran Kohout Architekti) began as an architectural studio based in Prague that was interested in the concept of close neighbourhood living. Recently, it has transformed into an international architectural office called UNIT Architekti.
References
Ær⊘, T. (2006). Residential choice from a lifestyle perspective. Housing, Theory and Society, 23, 109–130.
Andersen, H. S. (2011). Motives for tenure choice during the life cycle: The importance of non-economic factors and other housing preferences. Housing, Theory and Society, 28, 183–207.
Beamish, J. O., Goss, R. C., & Emmel, J. (2001). Lifestyle influences on housing preferences. Housing and Society, 28, 1–28.
Blažek, J. (2018). Různé formy kolektivního bydlení: bydlení jako commons – participativní bydlení podporované místní komunitou. In T. Samec (Ed.), Jak zajistit dostupné bydlení (pp. 5–9). Praha: SÚ AV ČR.
Boterman, W. R. (2012). Deconstructing coincidence: How middle-class households use various forms of capital to find a home. Housing, Theory and Society, 29, 321–338.
Boterman, W. R., Karsten, L., & Musterd, S. (2010). Gentrifiers settling down? Patterns and trends of residential location of middle-class families in Amsterdam. Housing Studies, 25, 693–714.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage.
Chiodelli, F. (2015). What is really different between cohousing and gated communities? European Planning Studies, 23, 2566–2581.
Choi, J. S. (2013). Why do people move to cohousing communities in Sweden? Are there any significant differences between the +40 cohousing and the mixed-age cohousing? Architectural Research, 15, 77–86.
Coolen, H., Boelhouwer, P., & Van Driel, K. (2002). Values and goals as determinants of intended tenure choice. Journal of Housing Research and the Built Environment, 17, 215–236.
Coolen, H., & Hekstra, J. (2001). Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16, 285–306.
Cope, M. (2003). Coding transcripts and diaries. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative methodologies for human geographers (pp. 310–324). Oxford: University Press.
Cope, M. (2010). Coding transcripts and diaries. In N. Clifford, S. French, & G. Valentine (Eds.), Key methods in geography (pp. 440–452). London: Sage.
Coulter, R., & Scott, J. (2015). What motivates residential mobility? Re-examining self-reported reasons for desiring and making residential moves. Population, Space and Place, 21, 354–371.
Coulter, R., Van Ham, M., & Feijten, P. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of moving desires, expectations and actual moving behavior. Environment and Planning A, 43, 2742–2760.
Coulter, R., Van Ham, M., & Findlay, A. M. (2016). Re-thinking residential mobility: Linking lives through time and space. Progress in Human Geography, 40, 352–374.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. London: Routledge.
CSO: Czech Statistical Office. (2011). Domovní a bytový fond podle výsledků sčítání lidu. https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/20551777/17021614.pdf/6bf03ae5-3196-464e-9200-611c97ba8484?version=1.0. Retrieved 17 May 2019.
CSO: Czech Statistical Office. (2015). Průměrné ceny bytů v ČR v letech 2012–2014 v závislosti na velikosti obcí (v Kč/m2). https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/20549563/0140061514.pdf/81adf1e2-affb-4f42-b20a-85ea9ad7489c?version=1.0. Retrieved 17 May 2019.
CSO: Czech Statistical Office. (2016). Database of individual migration data for the urban areas of Prague in years 2012‒2015. Prague: CSO.
ČUZK: State Administration of Land Surveying and Cadastre. (2019). Map layers. https://www.cuzk.cz/. Retrieved 19 May 2019.
Dieleman, F. M. (2001). Modelling residential mobility: A review of recent trends in research. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16, 249–265.
Dieleman, F. M., & Wegener, M. (2004). Compact city and urban sprawl. Built Environment, 30, 308–323.
Droste, C. (2015). German co-housing: An opportunity for municipalities to foster socially inclusive urban development? Urban Research and Practice, 8, 79–92.
Druta, O., & Ronald, R. (2017). Young adults’ pathways into homeownership and the negotiation of intra-family support: A home, the ideal gift. Sociology, 51, 783–799.
Gärling, T., & Friman, M. (2001). A psychological conceptualization of residential choice and satisfaction. In J. I. Aragonés, G. Francescato, & T. Gärling (Eds.), Residential environments: choice, satisfaction, and behavior (pp. 55–80). Westport: Bergin and Garvey.
Geist, C., & McManus, P. (2008). Geographical mobility over the life course: Motivations and implications. Population, Space and Place, 14, 283–303.
Haase, A., Wolff, M., Špačková, P., & Radzminski, A. (2017). Reurbanisation in postsocialist Europe—A comparative view of eastern Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Comparative Population Studies, 42, 353–390.
Hasu, E. (2018). Housing decision-making process explained by third agers, Finland: “We didn’t want this, but we chose it”. Housing Studies, 33, 837–854.
Herfert, G., Neugebauer, C. S., & Smigiel, C. H. (2013). Living in residential satisfaction? Insights from large-scale housing estates in Central and Eastern Europe. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 104, 57–74.
Hochstenbach, C., & Boterman, W. R. (2015). Navigating the field of housing: Housing pathways of young people in Amsterdam. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30, 257–274.
Hochstenbach, C., & Boterman, W. R. (2017). Intergenerational support shaping residential trajectories: Young people leaving home in a gentrifying city. Urban Studies, 54, 399–420.
Holtzman, G. (2014). Community by design, by the people: Social approach to designing and planning cohousing and ecovillage communities. Journal of Green Building, 9, 60–82.
Horňáková, M. (2017). Rezidenční mobilita a naplňování idejí cohousingu v každodenním životě obyvatel: případová studie projektu Alfarezidence. Diploma thesis. Social Geography and Regional Development
Howley, P. (2009). Attitudes towards compact city living: Towards a greater understanding of residential behavior. Land Use Policy, 26, 792–798.
Hypoindex.cz. (2018). Fincentrum Hypoindex – vývoj. https://www.hypoindex.cz/hypoindex-vyvoj/. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
Jansen, S. J. T. (2012). What is the worth of values in guiding residential preferences and choices? Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27, 273–300.
Jansen, S. J. T. (2014). Different values, different housing? Can underlying value orientations predict residential preference and choice? Housing, Theory and Society, 31, 254–276.
Jean, S. (2016). Neighbourhood attachment revisited: Middle-class families in the Montreal metropolitan region. Urban Studies, 53, 2567–2583.
JKA Cohousing. (2016). JKA cohousing. www.jka-cohousing.cz. Retrieved 10 December 2016.
Kährik, A., Novák, J., Temelová, J., Kadarik, K., & Tammaru, T. (2015a). Patterns and drivers of inner city social differentiation in Prague and Tallinn. Geografie, 120, 275–295.
Kährik, A., Temelová, J., Kadarik, K., & Kubeš, J. (2015b). What attracts people to inner city areas? The cases of two post-socialist cities in Estonia and the Czech Republic. Urban Studies, 53, 1–18.
Karsten, L. (2007). Housing as a way of life: Towards an understanding of middle class families’ preference for an urban residential location. Housing Studies, 22, 83–98.
Karsten, L. (2009). From a top-down to a bottom-up urban discourse: (Re) constructing the city in a family-inclusive way. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24, 317–329.
Karsten, L. (2014). From yuppies to yupps: Family gentrifiers consuming spaces and re-inventing cities. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 105, 175–188.
Kim, H., Woosnam, K. M., Marcouiller, D. W., Aleshinloye, K. D., & Choi, Y. (2015). Residential mobility, urban preference, and human settlement: A South Korean case study. Habitat International, 49, 497–507.
Kopečná, M. (2013). Rezidenční stabilita obyvatel zázemí Prahy. In H. Svobodová (Ed.), Výroční konference České geografické společnosti. Nové výzvy pro geografii (pp. 190–197). Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Lennartz, C., & Helbrecht, I. (2018). The housing careers of younger adults and intergenerational support in Germany’s ‘society of renters’. Housing Studies, 33, 317–336.
Lilius, J. (2014). Is there room for families in the inner city? Life-stage blenders challenging planning. Housing Studies, 29, 843–861.
Lilius, J. (2019). Reclaiming cities as spaces of middle class parenthood. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lukavec, M., & Kolařík, P. (2019). Residential property disparities in city districts in Prague, Czech Republic. European Planning Studies, 27, 201–217.
Lux, M., Gibas, P., Boumová, I., Hájek, M., & Sunega, P. (2017). Reasoning behind choices: Rationality and social norms in the housing market behaviour of first-time buyers in the Czech Republic. Housing Studies, 32, 517–539.
Lux, M., Kährik, A., & Sunega, P. (2012). Housing restitution and privatisation: Both catalysts and obstacles to the formation of private rental housing in the Czech Republic and Estonia. International Journal of Housing Policy, 12, 137–158.
Lux, M., Kostelecký, T., Mikeszová, M., & Sunega, P. (2009). Vybrané faktory stojící za vysokými cenami bytů v Praze. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 45, 967–991.
Lux, M., & Sunega, P. (2007). Vliv podmínek bydlení na zamýšlenou migraci české populace za prací. Sociologický Časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 43, 305–332.
Marsh, A., & Gibb, K. (2011). Uncertainty, expectations and behavioural aspects of housing market choices. Housing, Theory and Society, 28, 215–235.
MPSV: Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. (2009). Počet příjemců rodičovského příspěvku podle pohlaví. https://www.mpsv.cz/cs/10543. Retrieved 21 May 2019
Mulder, C. H. (1996). Housing choice: Assumptions and approaches. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 11, 209–232.
Němec, M. (2018). Územní analýza aktuálních developerských projektů výstavby bytových domů v Praze. IPR Praha. http://www.iprpraha.cz/uploads/assets/dokumenty/ssp/analyzy/bydleni_realitni_trh/uzemni_analyza_aktualnich_developerskych_projektu_2018.pdf. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
Ouředníček, M., Šimon, M., & Kopečná, M. (2015). The reurbanisation concept and its utility for contemporary research on post-socialist cities: The case of the Czech Republic. Moravian Geographical Reports, 23, 25–35.
Ouředníček, M., & Temelová, J. (2009). Twenty years after socialism: The transformation of Prague’s inner structure. Studia Sociologia, 54, 9–30.
Pacione, M. (2005). Urban geography: A global perspective. New York: Routledge.
Rabe, B., & Taylor, M. (2010). Residential mobility, quality of neighbourhood and life course events. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society, 173, 531–555.
Rossi, P. H. (1955). Why families move: A study in the social psychology of urban residential mobility. Glencoe IL: Free Press.
Ruiu, M. L. (2014). Differences between cohousing and gated communities: A literature review. Sociological Inquiry, 84, 316–335.
Samec, T. (2018). Alternativní formy bydlení jako cesta k řešení nedostupnosti bydlení. In T. Samec (Ed.), Jak zajistit dostupné bydlení (pp. 3–4). Praha: SÚ AV ČR.
Samec, T., & Lamač, V. (2018). Proč je bydlení finančně nedostupné? In T. Samec (Ed.), Jak zajistit dostupné bydlení (pp. 5–9). Praha: SÚ AV ČR.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. London: Sage.
Šimáček, P., Szczyrba, Z., Andráško, I., & Kunc, J. (2015). Twenty-five years of humanising post-socialist housing estates: From quantitative needs to qualitative requirements. Geographica Polonica, 88, 649–668.
Smith, S. (2001). Doing qualitative research: From interpretation to action. In T. Skelton, M. Limb, & C. Dwyer (Eds.), Qualitative methodologies for geographers (pp. 23–40). London: Arnold.
Špačková, P., Dvořáková, N., & Tobrmanová, M. (2016). Residential satisfaction and intention to move: The case of Prague’s new suburbanites. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 98, 331–348.
Špačková, P., & Ouředníček, M. (2012). Spinning the web: New social contacts of Prague’s suburbanites. Cities, 29, 341–349.
Stephens, M., Lux, M., & Sunega, P. (2015). Post-socialist housing systems in Europe: Housing welfare regimes by default? Housing Studies, 30, 1210–1234.
Sullivan, E. (2015). Individualizing utopia: Individualist pursuits in a collective cohousing community. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 45, 1–26.
Sunega, P., Boumová, I., Kážmér, L. & Lux, M. (2014). Jak jsme spokojeni se svým bydlením? Jak si představujeme své ideální bydlení? http://seb.soc.cas.cz/images/postoje2013/tiskovka_spokojenost_ideal.pdf. Retrieved 1 March 2017
Sýkora, L. (1999). Processes of socio-spatial differentiation in post-communist Prague. Housing Studies, 14, 679–701.
Sýkora, L. (2003). Suburbanizace a její společenské důsledky. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 39, 55–71.
Sýkora, L., & Bouzarovski, S. (2012). Multiple transformations: Conceptualising post–communist urban transition. Urban Studies, 49, 41–58.
Sýkora, L., & Ouředníček, M. (2007). Sprawling post-communist metropolis: commercial and residential suburbanisation in Prague and Brno, the Czech Republic. In E. Razin, M. Dijst, & C. Vázquez (Eds.), Employment deconcentration in European metropolitan areas: Market forces versus planning regulations (pp. 209–233). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tammaru, T., Musterd, S., Van Ham, M., & Marcińczak, S. (2015). A multi-factor approach to understanding socio-economic segregation in European capital cities. In Tammaru, et al. (Eds.), Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities: East meets West (pp. 1–29). London: Routledge.
Temelová, J. (2009). Urban revitalization in central and inner parts of (post-socialist) cities: conditions and consequences. In T. Ilmavirta (Ed.), Regenerating urban core (pp. 12–25). Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology: Centre for Urban and Regional Studies.
Temelová, J., Novák, J., Ouředníček, M., & Puldová, P. (2011). Housing estates in the Czech Republic after socialism: Various trajectories and inner differentiation. Urban Studies, 48, 1811–1834.
UNIT Architekti. (2012). Bytové domy Vackov, Praha. http://www.unitarch.eu/projekty/124. Retrieved 2 November 2016.
Van Ham, M., & Clark, W. A. V. (2009). Neighbourhood mobility in context: Household moves and changing neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning A, 41, 1442–1459.
Vestbro, D. U. (2014). Cohousing in Sweden, history and present situation. http://www.kollektivhus.nu/pdf/SwedishCohousing14.pdf. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
Vestbro, D. U., & Horelli, L. (2012). Design for gender equality—The history of cohousing ideas and realities. Built Environment, 38, 315–335.
Vobecká, J., Kostelecký, T., & Lux, M. (2014). Rental housing for young households in the Czech Republic: Perceptions, priorities and possible solutions. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 50, 365–390.
Williams, J. (2005). Designing neighbourhoods for social interaction: The case of cohousing. Journal of Urban Design, 10, 195–227.
Williams, J. (2008). Predicting an American future for cohousing. Futures, 40, 268–286.
Winstanley, A., Thorns, D. C., & Perkins, H. C. (2002). Moving house, creating home: Exploring residential mobility. Housing Studies, 16, 813–832.
Acknowledgements
This article was prepared using funding provided by the Charles University Grant Agency under Project No. 1434218 entitled ‘Selection of a new place of residence of inhabitants of the Prague metropolitan region’. It was also prepared with the support of funding from the Czech Science Foundation for Project No. 16-20991S entitled ‘Spatial Mobility, Everyday Life and Personal Ties: The Case Study of Women in Prague Metropolitan region’. Finally, this work has been supported by Charles University Research Centre program UNCE/HUM/018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Horňáková, M., Jíchová, J. Deciding where to live: case study of cohousing-inspired residential project in Prague. J Hous and the Built Environ 35, 807–827 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09714-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09714-7