Researching Collaborative Housing Through Design: A Case Study of Co-Design Workshops Involving Low-Income Recent Immigrants in Canada
Introduction
Collaborative housing through design offers a transformative pathway for addressing the acute affordability crisis facing low-income recent immigrants in Canada. As housing costs rise and traditional rental markets become increasingly inaccessible, marginalized populations face systemic barriers that limit their ability to secure adequate shelter. This article summarizes a pivotal case study published in Design Studies (2025) by Wikander, Collins, and Evans from the University of Alberta.
The research utilizes a Research Through Design approach to explore how co-design workshops can generate viable housing models tailored to the specific cultural, economic, and social needs of low-income recent immigrants. By prioritizing participant agency, the study reveals how collaborative housing through design can bridge the gap between theoretical housing policy and practical, user-centered solutions.The Housing Crisis and Immigrant Vulnerabilities
Canada’s housing crisis is rooted in a structural mismatch between incomes and housing costs, a condition that disproportionately affects disadvantaged socio-demographic groups. For low-income recent immigrants, the challenge is compounded by systemic structural injustices. Nearly 60% of recent immigrants spend more than 30% of their income on housing, experiencing severe unaffordability. Beyond financial strain, these households struggle to find housing of adequate size and location, often lacking access to community services and public transportation.
Barriers such as minimum employment duration requirements, lack of landlord references, low credit scores, and racial discrimination significantly impede early stages of settlement. Consequently, immigrants are forced to make difficult trade-offs between affordability, quality, size, location, and security of tenure.
Many accept substandard housing, share dwellings not intended for multiple occupants, or reside in neighborhoods with few amenities. In this context, collaborative housing through design emerges as a critical alternative, offering potential improvements in both affordability and social cohesion.
Methodology: Research Through Design and Co-Design
The study employed a Research Through Design framework, which embeds the research process in design practice to generate new knowledge. This approach is particularly suited for addressing uncertain futures and integrating diverse stakeholder perspectives. The specific method used was co-design, where participants without formal design training work alongside facilitators to create artefacts that reflect their needs and aspirations.
The co-design process involved 20 participants from 11 countries, including Brazil, Mexico, India, Nigeria, and Ukraine. All participants were low-income recent immigrants who had arrived in Canada within the last five years. The workshops were structured in three stages to guide participants from abstract desires to concrete housing models. This structured engagement allowed researchers to document how collaborative housing through design could articulate latent needs and envision alternative housing futures.
Conceptual Framework: Sharing and Space
A core component of the workshop was the conceptual distinction between sharing ownership and the organization of public and private space. Sharing, defined as nonreciprocal pro-social behavior, guarantees access and use without transferring ownership. In collaborative housing, this translates to shared ownership structures like cooperatives. However, shared ownership does not imply that all domestic spaces are public.
The researchers guided participants to distinguish between public and private spaces based on access, use, and perception. Private spaces, such as bedrooms, have restricted access and are reserved for intimate activities. Public spaces, such as kitchens and living rooms, allow for broader interaction. Understanding these distinctions was essential for participants to engage meaningfully in collaborative housing through design, as it allowed them to negotiate the trade-offs between privacy and affordability.
Workshop Process and Artefact Creation
The workshops began with participants designing their "dream house," allowing them to express long-term aspirations without immediate financial constraints. This step served as a baseline for understanding their preferences before introducing trade-offs. Next, participants designed a "minimum acceptable house," reducing private space to the bare minimum to maximize affordability. Finally, they worked in small groups to co-design a collaborative housing artefact that balanced private units with shared public spaces.
Participants used building blocks and tempera paints to create physical models, which were later translated into digital CAD drawings. This tactile approach encouraged creativity and helped participants visualize spatial relationships. The translation process standardized color codes and spatial arrangements, enabling the researchers to categorize the diverse designs into coherent models.
Through this process, collaborative housing through design facilitated a democratic exchange of ideas, mirroring the operational dynamics of actual collaborative housing communities.
Five Core Models of Collaborative Housing Through Design
The analysis of the artefacts yielded five distinct conceptual models, ranging from high-sharing co-living arrangements to more independent cohousing structures. These models represent different points on a continuum of privacy and affordability, reflecting the diverse needs of the participants.
Model A: Co-Living for Short Tenures
Model A functions as a co-living arrangement where inhabitants share a dwelling with minimal private space. The only private space is a single bedroom, while all other facilities—including the kitchen, bathroom, dining room, living room, laundry, office, garage, gym, and storage—are public. Access to bedrooms is via an internal circulation system. Participants viewed this model as suitable for short tenancies of up to one year, primarily for individuals seeking maximum affordability and proximity to work or study. It resembles traditional student residences but is self-managed.
Model B: Clustered Co-Living
Model B also functions as co-living but offers slightly more privacy. Housing units consist of enlarged bedrooms with bathrooms and one additional space. These units are organized around a nucleus of public spaces, including a kitchen, dining room, living room, and other amenities. Participants suggested this model for stays of one to two years, suitable for individuals or couples.
While self-managed, participants were reluctant to invest economically in ownership, viewing it as a transitional housing solution. This model highlights how collaborative housing through design can accommodate varying levels of commitment and investment.
Model C+: Hybrid Cohousing and Co-Living
Model C+ represents a hybrid between co-living and cohousing. Housing units take the form of independent apartments with a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, and living room. These units are organized around a core of public services, including a common kitchen and dining room, which participants identified as essential for social interaction. An internal courtyard or patio was frequently included. This model supports stays of one to three years and is designed for two people. It balances independence with community, allowing for shared administration and maintenance tasks.
Model F: Family-Oriented Cohousing
Model F functions as cohousing, with housing units that are almost independent and linked through an external circulation system. Each unit includes two bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, a living room, and a dining room. Public spaces include a common kitchen and dining room, laundry, office, and storage. This model resonated with participants from larger families or those with religious practices prioritizing privacy, such as some South Asian participants.
Despite the need for privacy, participants accepted fewer private spaces in exchange for affordability, viewing the stay of one to four years as a step toward their dream home.
Model G: Independent Cohousing with Rental Options
Model G offers the highest level of independence, functioning as cohousing or rental. Units are highly independent, accessed via external circulation, and include four bedrooms, multiple bathrooms, a kitchen, living room, dining room, and entertainment room. Public spaces include a common kitchen and dining room, gym, and gathering areas.
This model accommodates four to five inhabitants and supports stays of one to five years, with the possibility of permanent occupancy. It addresses the needs of families requiring significant privacy, particularly those adhering to Islamic customs regarding gender segregation and modesty.
Interpreting Models as Housing Pathways
The five models derived from collaborative housing through design reflect different housing pathways for low-income recent immigrants. Participants largely viewed collaborative housing as a temporary stage in their journey toward homeownership, rather than a permanent solution. Affordability was the primary driver, often outweighing social considerations. This finding contrasts with some scholarly literature that emphasizes social cohesion as the main benefit of collaborative housing.
Cultural background influenced preferences for privacy and space. Latin American and Eastern European participants were more willing to minimize private space, while South Asian and African participants prioritized privacy for family members, particularly women.
However, all groups agreed on the importance of shared kitchens and dining rooms, recognizing food preparation and consumption as key social activities. This consensus underscores the value of collaborative housing through design in identifying universal needs amidst cultural diversity.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The study demonstrates that end-users can successfully act as designers when provided with appropriate tools and frameworks. The co-design process empowered participants to integrate their cultural, religious, and socioeconomic realities into housing models. This challenges the traditional top-down approach to housing policy, suggesting that collaborative housing through design can produce more relevant and acceptable solutions.
For policymakers and housing providers, the findings highlight the need for flexible housing forms that accommodate varying lengths of tenure and family sizes. The inclusion of public cores with shared kitchens and dining rooms is a critical design element that supports both affordability and community building. Furthermore, the study suggests that collaborative housing should be positioned as part of a broader housing pathway, offering transitional stability while immigrants establish themselves in Canada.
Conclusion
This case study provides compelling evidence that collaborative housing through design is a viable and effective strategy for addressing the housing needs of low-income recent immigrants. By engaging participants in the co-creation of housing models, the research identified five distinct configurations that balance privacy, affordability, and community. These models reflect the diverse aspirations and constraints of immigrant populations, offering a roadmap for future housing developments.
The emphasis on affordability, combined with the strategic sharing of public spaces, presents a practical solution to the ongoing housing crisis. As Canada continues to welcome immigrants, adopting participatory design methods will be essential for creating inclusive and adequate housing systems. The insights from this study reinforce the ongoing value of collaborative housing through design as a tool for social innovation and equitable urban development.