Affordability and Market-Rate Homes: Holding the Tension Without Losing the Mission

Equity, access, and integrity in mixed-income community

Affordability is one of the most compelling promises of cohousing—and one of the most complex to deliver. Many people are drawn to community living because they want a more humane, sustainable and connected way to live. At the same time, they’re navigating a housing market that feels increasingly out of reach, and with cohousing, residents each have to bear a prorated shared of the costs of the common amenities. When cohousing communities commit to including both affordable and market-rate homes, a natural tension emerges: how do we expand access without compromising financial viability or community cohesion?

This tension isn’t a flaw in the cohousing model. It’s a reflection of the broader housing crisis we’re living in. Land costs are high (and according to a recent Denver Post article, Colorado land costs increased at a rate 6.3 times the inflation rate from 2012 through 2022), construction costs continue to rise and financing structures often reward exclusivity rather than inclusion. Mixed-income cohousing sits right at the intersection of these pressures, trying to do something deeply countercultural: build community that is both financially sustainable and socially equitable.

Market-rate homes are often essential to getting a cohousing project built. They help secure financing, stabilize cash flow and help cover shared infrastructure costs that benefit everyone. Without them, many communities simply wouldn’t pencil out. Acknowledging this reality isn’t a betrayal of affordability—it’s part of being honest about how housing development works in the world we actually inhabit.

At the same time, affordability can’t be treated as an afterthought or a marketing add-on. When affordable homes are positioned as secondary or optional, communities risk reinforcing the very inequities they hope to address. The challenge is holding both truths at once: market-rate homes may be necessary for viability and affordability must be central to the mission.

One of the most common fears in mixed-income communities is that differences in income will lead to differences in power, voice or belonging. These concerns are valid. If not intentionally addressed, financial disparities can quietly shape who has more time, confidence or influence in decision-making spaces. That’s why governance, transparency and culture matter as much as financing mechanisms.

Healthy mixed-income cohousing communities make an explicit commitment to equity of voice. Decision-making structures are designed so that ownership type or purchase price doesn’t translate into greater authority. Roles rotate, responsibilities are shared and leadership is not tied to financial contribution. When governance is clear and values-aligned, economic diversity becomes a strength rather than a fault line.

It’s also important to name that affordability itself is not a single category. Some households may qualify for permanently affordable, income-restricted homes. Others may stretch significantly to purchase a market-rate unit. Both experiences can involve financial stress, vulnerability and tradeoffs. Avoiding simplistic narratives about who is “affordable” and who is “not” helps build empathy across the community.

Design plays a powerful role in reinforcing dignity and belonging. When affordable and market-rate homes are indistinguishable in quality, aesthetics and access to shared spaces, the message is clear: everyone belongs here. Mixed-income cohousing works best when affordability is integrated, not segregated—physically or socially.

Clear communication is another essential ingredient. Communities that talk openly about how affordability is structured, why certain tradeoffs are made and how decisions align with shared values tend to experience less mistrust. Transparency doesn’t eliminate tension, but it keeps it from becoming corrosive. People are far more willing to hold complexity when they understand the “why” behind it.

It’s also worth acknowledging that affordability is not a static achievement—it’s an ongoing practice. What feels affordable at move-in may shift as life circumstances change. Mixed-income communities that plan for long-term affordability, resale restrictions and support structures are better positioned to remain inclusive over time rather than only at the point of entry.

Holding the tension between affordability and market-rate housing requires humility. There is no perfect formula, no one-size-fits-all solution. Communities must make choices within constraints, revisit assumptions, and stay grounded in their mission even when decisions are difficult. That work can be uncomfortable—but it’s also deeply meaningful.

When communities avoid this conversation, affordability becomes fragile. When they engage it thoughtfully, affordability becomes resilient. Mixed-income cohousing has the potential to model a different way forward—one where people with different financial realities live as neighbors, not categories, and where shared values guide shared decisions.

Ultimately, the goal isn’t to erase tension. The goal is to hold it with integrity. When communities are willing to sit in the complexity of affordability and market-rate housing—without denial or defensiveness—they create space for honesty, trust, and collective problem-solving.

Affordability and market-rate homes don’t have to be opposing forces. When guided by clear values, transparent structures, and a commitment to equity, they can coexist in a way that strengthens the whole. And in a housing landscape defined by scarcity and separation, that may be one of the most radical contributions cohousing can make. In the end, holding this tension well is part of the real work of living in community. It asks us to balance practicality with purpose, economics with empathy, and vision with reality. And when we do, we don’t lose the mission—we live it.