Eh, I lived in a 400sq foot dome for four years. Always with a room-mate, sometimes with two. It was great. The bit of space between the couch and the wall just becomes some oddly-shaped storage space. Sometimes people would carve their own dome-fitting bookshelves in the wood shop.

There were fourteen of these domes, run as a cooperative, on three acres of land. The loans on building them were paid off in full by the early eighties, and I believe there was about a decade where no one paid rent. But eventually it was decided that a nest egg should be built up for upkeep and so on; by the time I was there, it was running about a third of market rent, and these days (due to some additional pressure to modernize) the rents are up to about 2/3 market.

Cooperative ownership is fantastic, and a great cure for the ails of capitalism. But they tend to not get a lot of investment for exactly the same reason: capital isn't interested in investing in non-capitalist spaces.

But it's certainly possible to band together with some friends to get an initial down-payment+loan. Then you incorporate the cooperative, and essentially 'sell' the house to the new cooperative, so that the 'rent' you pay to your new co-op pays off the bank loans. Once the loans are paid off, the cooperative becomes an autonomous creature, self-sustaining as long as there are people happy to live with other people and decide how the place will be run, rather than dealing with a landlord...

   > Cooperative ownership is fantastic, and a great cure 
   > for the ails of capitalism.

+$0.02. I served several years on a housing co-op board for a 156 unit urban high-rise (including as treasurer) and cooperative ownership is itself not a cure all, only the composition of the "ownership" is different. The shareholders (tenants) pool their investment, true, and then go on to create a corporate structure, elect a board, draw up rules and enforce them, assign duties, levy fees and payments, hire staff, contract, etc. It's a fairly ordinary corporation in most respects. The co-op is the landlord and it's quite a business to run even when things are going well and everyone pulls in the same direction and individuals don't cause each other trouble. When things go wrong (as they always do) or shareholders disagree (as they always do) or people behave badly (as they always do), it's exceedingly challenging and because it's a mix of personal and business there are some tough decisions and terrible hard feelings.

I agree capital tends to avoid housing co-ops because they smell funny and act differently and the laws around them are a mess. As a result, it's harder to assess the risk for a co-op than other businesses and more complicated to borrow, contract, etc.

It's totally possible to do at smaller scale; I've known of some micro co-ops of just one or two houses that have been quite successful. The smaller scale minimizes certain kinds of headaches..