Deciding where to live: case study of cohousing-inspired residential project in Prague

  • Marie HorňákováEmail author
  • Jana Jíchová


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.


Cohousing Inner city Residential mobility Residential preferences Prague 



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.


  1. Ær⊘, T. (2006). Residential choice from a lifestyle perspective. Housing, Theory and Society, 23, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beamish, J. O., Goss, R. C., & Emmel, J. (2001). Lifestyle influences on housing preferences. Housing and Society, 28, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Chiodelli, F. (2015). What is really different between cohousing and gated communities? European Planning Studies, 23, 2566–2581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coolen, H., & Hekstra, J. (2001). Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16, 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cope, M. (2003). Coding transcripts and diaries. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative methodologies for human geographers (pp. 310–324). Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cope, M. (2010). Coding transcripts and diaries. In N. Clifford, S. French, & G. Valentine (Eds.), Key methods in geography (pp. 440–452). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. CSO: Czech Statistical Office. (2011). Domovní a bytový fond podle výsledků sčítání lidu. Retrieved 17 May 2019.
  20. CSO: Czech Statistical Office. (2015). Průměrné ceny bytů v ČR v letech 2012–2014 v závislosti na velikosti obcí (v Kč/m2). Retrieved 17 May 2019.
  21. CSO: Czech Statistical Office. (2016). Database of individual migration data for the urban areas of Prague in years 2012‒2015. Prague: CSO.Google Scholar
  22. ČUZK: State Administration of Land Surveying and Cadastre. (2019). Map layers. Retrieved 19 May 2019.
  23. Dieleman, F. M. (2001). Modelling residential mobility: A review of recent trends in research. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dieleman, F. M., & Wegener, M. (2004). Compact city and urban sprawl. Built Environment, 30, 308–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Droste, C. (2015). German co-housing: An opportunity for municipalities to foster socially inclusive urban development? Urban Research and Practice, 8, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Geist, C., & McManus, P. (2008). Geographical mobility over the life course: Motivations and implications. Population, Space and Place, 14, 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hochstenbach, C., & Boterman, W. R. (2017). Intergenerational support shaping residential trajectories: Young people leaving home in a gentrifying city. Urban Studies, 54, 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Horňáková, M. (2017). Rezidenční mobilita a naplňování idejí cohousingu v každodenním životě obyvatel: případová studie projektu Alfarezidence. Diploma thesis. Social Geography and Regional DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  36. Howley, P. (2009). Attitudes towards compact city living: Towards a greater understanding of residential behavior. Land Use Policy, 26, 792–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. (2018). Fincentrum Hypoindex – vývoj. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jean, S. (2016). Neighbourhood attachment revisited: Middle-class families in the Montreal metropolitan region. Urban Studies, 53, 2567–2583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. JKA Cohousing. (2016). JKA cohousing. Retrieved 10 December 2016.
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Karsten, L. (2014). From yuppies to yupps: Family gentrifiers consuming spaces and re-inventing cities. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 105, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lilius, J. (2014). Is there room for families in the inner city? Life-stage blenders challenging planning. Housing Studies, 29, 843–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lilius, J. (2019). Reclaiming cities as spaces of middle class parenthood. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lukavec, M., & Kolařík, P. (2019). Residential property disparities in city districts in Prague, Czech Republic. European Planning Studies, 27, 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. Lux, M., & Sunega, P. (2007). Vliv podmínek bydlení na zamýšlenou migraci české populace za prací. Sociologický Časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 43, 305–332.Google Scholar
  57. Marsh, A., & Gibb, K. (2011). Uncertainty, expectations and behavioural aspects of housing market choices. Housing, Theory and Society, 28, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. MPSV: Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. (2009). Počet příjemců rodičovského příspěvku podle pohlaví. Retrieved 21 May 2019
  59. Mulder, C. H. (1996). Housing choice: Assumptions and approaches. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 11, 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Němec, M. (2018). Územní analýza aktuálních developerských projektů výstavby bytových domů v Praze. IPR Praha. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ouředníček, M., & Temelová, J. (2009). Twenty years after socialism: The transformation of Prague’s inner structure. Studia Sociologia, 54, 9–30.Google Scholar
  63. Pacione, M. (2005). Urban geography: A global perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rossi, P. H. (1955). Why families move: A study in the social psychology of urban residential mobility. Glencoe IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  66. Ruiu, M. L. (2014). Differences between cohousing and gated communities: A literature review. Sociological Inquiry, 84, 316–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.Google Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.Google Scholar
  72. 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.Google Scholar
  73. Špačková, P., & Ouředníček, M. (2012). Spinning the web: New social contacts of Prague’s suburbanites. Cities, 29, 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stephens, M., Lux, M., & Sunega, P. (2015). Post-socialist housing systems in Europe: Housing welfare regimes by default? Housing Studies, 30, 1210–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sullivan, E. (2015). Individualizing utopia: Individualist pursuits in a collective cohousing community. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 45, 1–26.Google Scholar
  76. Sunega, P., Boumová, I., Kážmér, L. & Lux, M. (2014). Jak jsme spokojeni se svým bydlením? Jak si představujeme své ideální bydlení? Retrieved 1 March 2017
  77. Sýkora, L. (1999). Processes of socio-spatial differentiation in post-communist Prague. Housing Studies, 14, 679–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sýkora, L. (2003). Suburbanizace a její společenské důsledky. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 39, 55–71.Google Scholar
  79. Sýkora, L., & Bouzarovski, S. (2012). Multiple transformations: Conceptualising post–communist urban transition. Urban Studies, 49, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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.Google Scholar
  83. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. UNIT Architekti. (2012). Bytové domy Vackov, Praha. Retrieved 2 November 2016.
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vestbro, D. U. (2014). Cohousing in Sweden, history and present situation. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
  87. Vestbro, D. U., & Horelli, L. (2012). Design for gender equality—The history of cohousing ideas and realities. Built Environment, 38, 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.Google Scholar
  89. Williams, J. (2005). Designing neighbourhoods for social interaction: The case of cohousing. Journal of Urban Design, 10, 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Williams, J. (2008). Predicting an American future for cohousing. Futures, 40, 268–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Winstanley, A., Thorns, D. C., & Perkins, H. C. (2002). Moving house, creating home: Exploring residential mobility. Housing Studies, 16, 813–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPrague 2Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations