Rotterdams Woongenootschap

A conversation with Arie Lengkeek about the Rotterdams Woongenootschap and his book Operatie Wooncoöperatie

It took some effort to arrange an appointment but eventually it was possible, and we drove to Rotterdam at the end of 2022 for a long and good conversation with programme curator slash concept developer Arie Lengkeek.

After his studies in social geography and planning, Arie started to focus on the development of the city which he does, among other things, through research, publications, meetings and debate. Besides his involvement in the Rotterdams Woongenootschap he wrote, together with Peter Kuenzli, the book Operatie Wooncoöperatie and he organised the Cooperative Conditions gathering in October of 2022 at the Keilepand in Rotterdam. Despite the Rotterdams Woongenootschap not yet being able to establish a living cooperation in Rotterdam, Arie still continues with his mission, and he is busy with the lobby for better conditions at the municipality, government and banks. He is convinced that de cooperative movement as a third construction flow is not a niche, but a promising option to make affordable and comfortable housing possible in the long run.

Rotterdam
Our conversations start with Rotterdam. The city where Arie moved to after his studies, where his sons were born and where he still enjoys to live. (Also his sons never want to leave the city).
Arie tells about the stream of people moving from Amsterdam to Rotterdam in the last decade as it was easier to find an affordable house in Rotterdam than in Amsterdam. The situation has now changed as in Rotterdam the housing market is currently also considerably overstrained. This unwanted situation according to Arie is not only due to the consequences of gentrification but mainly the housing policy of the municipality. It is becoming more and more difficult to find affordable property as the municipality – under the guise of ‘Wijken in Balans’ (neighbourhoods in balance) – marginalises the social sector and focuses on building middle and high rent properties. As a response to this policy the activist group Recht op de stad in 2022 developed an alternative vision on living in Rotterdam leading up to the municipal elections. The document called Het betere plan (the better plan) is based on right to housing and rejects the idea of the ‘city in balance’ from the Woonvisie Rotterdam in 2016 which led to a great decrease in affordable properties.
Recht op de stad is an initiative of resident groups from different neighbourhoods in Rotterdam; Stad in de Maak, Het Rotterdams Woongenootschap and other involved people from Rotterdam. Since March 2021 they commit to making a better and more fair housing policy in Rotterdam. Due to the meetings of Recht op de stad and for example the protests in the Tarwewijk and Tweebosbuurt a city-wide social movement starts which shows that the issue of affordable housing no longer is limited to the individual, but is made collective, which is a good development

According to Arie squatting is a decent way to make visible that the mechanisms of the real estate market are sometimes contradictory to what is socially wanted and necessary.

Empty buildings
Just like Amsterdam, Rotterdam is dealing with more empty buildings than wanted and currently – just like in the capital city – despite the squatting ban there is some squatting done here and there. Mainly properties that are on the nomination list to be torn down, are temporarily occupied by squatters. According to Arie squatting is a decent way to make visible that the mechanisms of the real estate market are sometimes contradictory to what is socially wanted and necessary.
Stad in de Maak (city in the making) is an organisation that doesn’t focus on squatting, rather on vacant property management. They fill up properties that are temporarily empty in between demolition and new construction. Inspiring projects where collective facilities are built and public programmes are organised. Stad in de Maak has among other things created living/work spaces in de Almondestraat, Bloklandstraat, Banierstraat and recently the Vlaardinger Meent in Vlaardingen. When Arie recently visited the Vlaardinger Meent for the first time it made him very happy. Emotional, almost, as he realised that people still seek each other out and turn towards each other instead of holding back trying to solve one’s own problems on their own.

Rotterdams Woongenootschap
In November of 2017 the initiative was taken by Ninke Happel and Peter Kuenzli to start a residential society of Rotterdam, soon thereafter, Arie joined the project and the Rotterdams Woongenootschap was founded. The word ‘genootschap’ was chosen very consciously as the project was heavily inspired by the Swiss model of the Genossenschaften. A cooperative association model based on shared ownership, right to housing and affordability for the long-term. The focus of the Rotterdams Woongenootschap was on the middle class. Affordable housing for larger families or living groups who fell into the gap between social housing and expensive real estate market. A great idea that fit into the urban policy of Rotterdam at that time where it was stated that the cooperative model was a good way to have bigger apartments. With around 40 members, a couple hundred followers and 3 locations that were reserved by the municipality the project seemed to be successful, but despite a promising start, things came to a halt in the municipal system of Rotterdam. From the departments living and city development the idea of the living cooperation was met with enthusiasm, but eventually the essence, being the shared ownership and the non-speculative character was not appreciated.
This became clear when they were compared by the land policy department with a commercial owner who would build property with high rent that would strongly go up each year. Correspondingly there’s also a significantly higher land value to be established, than when rent prices are regulated through cost-price calculations, and no interest can be received from the sale. The difference between both calculations turned out to be unbridgeable.

Financing
Besides the problem of the land pricing not fitting, the financing turned out to be very complicated as well. As banks only finance 60 or 70% of the costs of a living cooperation, ways have to be found to close the gap in the financing. The contribution of own funds seems obvious but if you are looking to build for those with lower incomes then it’s close to impossible. Many people simply don’t have their own assets that they can invest. Organising a national loan fund – with potential urban branches – according to Arie is a necessity if you want to grow the cooperative movement. In Amsterdam the municipality has meanwhile started a loan fund and the first living cooperations have really started. That doesn’t go to say that all problems are now solved but it is a step in the right direction that will hopefully cause the Dutch government as well as the municipality of Rotterdam to follow.

As of now the living cooperation is still viewed by municipalities and the government as a niche. The scale is among other things not large enough to be taken seriously. Completely unjustified says Arie as in surrounding countries it has been proven that the potential of and the need for the cooperative movement is extremely high. The niche treatment of the living cooperation leads to its’ struggling emergence as a third construction flow, thus Arie thinks that outgoing minister Hugo de Jonge of housing and special organization must start a national loan fund as soon as possible. Such a fund takes a vast capital injection at the start but the good thing is that paying the fund back and adding to it goes faster as soon as more cooperative projects are established. At a certain there even comes a tipping point. When this happens the invested money goes back to the government and the fund can continue to grow on its own.

Another option to accumulate more money in the cooperative movement according to Arie can be done by societal capital and impact investors. There are sufficient people with more than enough money who would – with limited interest – want to or can loan to housing cooperations. To get the ball rolling the government must recognise and display the societal purpose of cooperative projects.

A cooperation is not just about housing but also a safety net that you built up with and for each other.

Regarding the Dutch banks, Arie thinks that they urgently need to discuss with their colleagues in for example Switzerland, Austria and Germany. In those countries it is no problem to invest in housing cooperations. There the Genossenschaffen are viewed as trustworthy creditors and it is commonly understood that a Genossenschaffen is a community within which people support and take care of one another. When for example an individual in a Genossenschaft is temporarily unable to pay his/her contribution this is taken care of by the collective. Thus the issue doesn’t go directly to the bank. The buffer is called solidarity and is the reason why thus far there have been no problems between a Genossenschaft and a bank. A cooperation is not just about housing but also a safety net that you built up with and for each other. According to Arie that is the profit is solidarity and it causes for the collective to be a lot richer than the individual could ever be.

Legal form
Arie deems it to be very important that a clearly defined legal form is established by the housing cooperation as a cooperative association. Now, one can see that housing cooperation’s are almost always normal associations as the Dutch tax laws see the cooperation as a company that is focused on generating profit. The Genossenschaft legal form on the other hand is a cooperative association, so a company that is not focused on profit-making, but fulfilling the material needs of members. In the context of the housing cooperation the needs of housing and democratic management and maintenance. This specific legal form doesn’t exist in the Netherlands but could possibly be very useful as in the Netherlands you are put into the categories of either private or public. There is no in-between, leading to many housing cooperations despite knowing that financing is difficult with banks, going for the legal form of an association instead of cooperation.
The Rotterdams Woongenootschap was inspired by the Swiss model and did decide to go for the cooperation as a legal form when founding. In the regulations it was established that they would operate as a cooperation as legal form. No profit-making but instead focused on creating cost-covering property and affordability for the long run. Subsequently, Arie is unsure whether the choice for a cooperation was the right one. Maybe they then should have chosen the legal form of an association, but unfortunately at the time they didn’t have a fiscal advisor who could properly explain the pro’s and cons of both forms.

Lobby group
When the Rotterdamse Woongenootschap pulled the plug out of their project in 2020 the group of involved people didn’t separate but continued as a lobbying group. In the meantime, the Woongenootschap has entered the activist group Recht op de stad to make a better case for different ways of living across the board in Rotterdam. Behind the scenes there is still work being done on and conversations are being held with the municipality about created the right conditions for housing cooperations. Maybe the collective in the future, if conditions are more promising, will continue with bringing the housing cooperation the Rotterdams Woongenootschap to life.

Operation housing cooperation
In 2022, Arie together with Peter Kuenzli published the book Operatie wooncoöperatie (operation housing cooperation) with the publisher Valiz, from the need and questions that they had during the development of the Rotterdams Woongenootschap. A publication about the many different sides of the process, organising together, the financial aspects and including social processes within the living cooperation or a Genossenschaft. Simultaneously a story about the quality of architecture, the development of floor plans, housing culture and the history of civilisation. Not the individual prompt of ‘how do I wish to live?’ but the communal shaping of the question ‘how do we wish to live together?’. Living is a fundamental right, not a commodity. And citizens are able to shape this together. Operatie wooncoöperatie tells the history of our living circumstances; why the cooperation left the picture and how the housing crisis emerged. It documents ten unique projects from Vienna, Zürich and Munich and explains how these types of projects are only able to exist through conscious choices made by the local authorities.

Cooperative conditions
In October of 2022 Arie Lengkeek and Peter Kuenzli organised as a result of the the release of Operatie Wooncoöperatie the cooperative conditions symposium together with AIR Rotterdam, KeileCollectief and trancityXvaliz. At this gathering in the Keilepand in Rotterdam politicians, policy makers, architects and activists discussed about the collective shaping of the future of housing. There were also presentations about innovative architecture, affordable and innovative ways of civilisation and effective regulation by people/organisations from Vienna, Zürich and Munich. These three cities have a strong history of affordable housing and housing cooperations. The symposium explored the successes of cooperative self-organisation of citizens from the perspective of the institutional and municipal conditions necessary to make this possible: cooperative conditions.

Cooperative organisation leads to the German term gemeinnützig which means ‘meant for public benefit’.

Gemeinnützig
The interesting part of common ownership and cooperative projects is that a different type of commissioning can lead to a different type of architecture. Cooperative organisation leads to the German term gemeinnützig which means ‘meant for public benefit’. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland organising from that context is much more common than in the Netherlands and causes for a clear renewing of housing. It is also the reason for the book Operatie wooncoöperatie being so heavily oriented around the three countries. The cooperative model is also used in Denmark and other countries but the good thing about Germany, Austria and Switzerland is that it is positioned well in the societal field and clearly shows that is has an alternative form of living as a result.

Strengthening the movement
The German Mietshäuser Syndikat and the Dutch VrijCoop are, according to Arie, good examples of the collectivisation of collectives. They connect collective projects in a way that makes the movement stronger. Not just through adaptation and discussion but mainly due to governance and having a say. The constructions of Mietshäuser Syndikat as well as VrijCoop make sure collective projects cannot be sold and that everyone contributes financially to a self-founded solidarity fund that can be used to help fund new projects.
In Brussels hard work is being done, but with a different method of CLT (Community Land Trust) construction. It is not identical to the model of Mietshäuser Syndikat and VrijCoop but it is comparable as the land of cooperative projects is placed in the CLT, thus making it collective ownership. Arie thinks that a similar system could also work well for Amsterdam. So instead of the usual leasehold construction via the municipality a CLT system in which all land of the cooperations is accommodated with a legal structure so it cannot be sold or traded. A good way to connect housing cooperations with one another and build up a similar structure of the Mietshäuser Syndikat or the CLT in Brussels. It causes for long-term assurance and offers the possibility of building a system of solidarity which supports the growth of the cooperative system.

A community economy is about regenerative systems, that don’t deplete but improve themselves when and because they are used.

Community economy
If you put the words community and economy together you get the term community economy. The term is a keyword in the book Operatie Wooncoöperatie in which Arie and Peter indicate that the cooperative model is not merely an ideological organisation but also a company. A serious actor on the real estate market who doesn’t allow to be led by real estate interest, but instead prioritises the bettering of the community. A community economy is about regenerative systems, that don’t deplete but improve themselves when and because they are used.
In the idea of the donut economy by Kate Raworth around the same can be seen, an economic model that is not about the exhaustion of the earth but the emergence and feeding of communities by building, maintaining and managing together. De donut by Raworth is a way and language that makes ideas open to discussion.
In the end the donut itself isn’t important, it’s about the righteous use and righteous transmission of resources and possibilities. The cooperative movement fits in well with that according to Arie as a form and model of governance and autonomy.

Housing cooperations
The Netherlands has a lot of housing cooperations. They are the ones in control of social housing. In the past these cooperations were often associations but over time almost all converted to foundations. The corporations grew due to fusions and upscaling and say of those renting their properties completely disappeared. Now you are a renter for the corporation, nothing else. There is no connection between the two and it happens often that corporations that choose to sell corporation houses on the free market, against the will of the tenant. This is protested by the activist group Niet te koop (not for sale), that repeatedly asks the question of whether this is what we want. They make the question of who the housing belongs to negotiable, which is important.
In Arnhem, Nijmegen and surrounding areas, the Woningbouwvereniging Gelderland (WBVG = housing corporation Gelderland) as a tiny corporation found a legitimate way to allow people to shape their living situation through management cooperation. A model that one would hope would be more commonly used in the Netherlands, as in this way development of the corporation would become available for the housing cooperation. A good WVRG example is the sustainably built straw neighbourhood IEWAN in Lent. They were the first to build on scale with straw. Normally this is a pricey matter but through self-employment and the will to make it work it was made possible. Residents, volunteers and professional builders worked side by side on the complex of 24 social housing properties, made of straw, loam and wood.

Architecture
According to Arie the Dutch cooperative construction flow would be profited greatly by the impulses from architecture.
It’s common that the collective housing vision of a cooperation is converted to a list of demands and that one then goes to the architect for a design. Zürich, Munich or Vienna but also the CLT projects in Brussels show that a design competition is held and thus there are multiple responses to the same proposal. Differing perspectives and solutions can be very beneficial in the development of a project but also for similar projects that follow says Arie.

It could help the Dutch cooperative movement greatly if professional developers and builders could be involved with the realisation of cooperative building projects under fitting conditions.

There is a need as well as interest in innovations of housing. Not merely from the housing cooperations themselves but also the larger urban developers are interested. They also see that housing cooperations can create something that is seen in urban development as a sort of holy grail. A combination of liveliness, mixing of functions, identity and acquisition.
In German-speaking countries there’s a highly regulated geminnutzige construction chain. This means that there are developers who conduct their work under regulated conditions for the benefit of the public interest. It could help the Dutch cooperative movement greatly if professional developers and builders could be involved with the realisation of cooperative building projects under fitting conditions. The problem of housing cooperations in the Netherlands is that they often start a project without any experience. They have to do and find out everything. They have to literally become a project developer themselves which not everyone has the time and will for. It is also unnecessary as the expertise is there, it just has to be installed in a socially oriented way and made available to the cooperative movement. Housing cooperations should be more focused on commissioning and leave the project development to others. Then the building of new buildings would be much faster, easier and better.

Politics
Arie notes that the trust in politics has harshly decreased in the past years. Our representative democracy, the voting once every four years and then hoping things move in the right direction,  isn’t working anymore. People want to make more decisions for themselves and take part in the democracy. For exactly this reason the commons, housing cooperations and other projects in collective ownership are so important. These are spaces where day-to-day democracy can be carried out. Spaces to give shape to community together. It can be seen in housing but also in farming, the generation of energy and organising of healthcare. People engage in collective entrepreneurship in accordance with their own needs or out of necessity, without becoming fixated on generating individual profit.

As a result of stimulating and subsidising home ownership, according to Arie, you see that the electorate shifts further and further to the right side of the spectrum as soon as people have bought a house. The person who owns the property wants to keep it so they can pass it on to their own children and grandchildren. This is something they don’t want to be interfered with.
Many people find it odd that there is no accumulation of personal wealth in a housing cooperation. It doesn’t fit the narrative of accumulating property and becoming successful. What people generally don’t understand is that housing cooperations stand for affordable housing now, but also for the future. That in itself is legacy and solidarity, perhaps not as direct as passing on personal assets but in a much broader sense.