Coliving for the Longer Term: Adapting American & Scandinavian Coliving Innovations to the U.K. by praskannan

COLIVING FOR THE LONGER TERM: ADAPTING AMERICAN & SCANDINAVIAN COLIVING INNOVATIONS TO THE UK BY PRASANNA KANNAN

PRASANNA KANNAN

“We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us” - Sir Winston Churchill, London, 28th October 1943

With great thanks to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust for my research fellowship

Copyright Ó 2020 by Prasanna Kannan. The moral right of the author has been asserted. The views and opinions expressed in this report and its content are those of the author and not of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust or its partners, which have no responsibility or liability for any part of the report. Image overleaf reproduced from “Imagine: Exploring the Brave New World of Shared Living” by Space10, Copenhagen, Denmark.

PRASANNA KANNAN

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge and thank the following people without whose contributions this report would not have been possible: Birgit Arve-Parès, Kollektivhuset Rio Eva Arquero Jimenez, Arup Sven Blume, TrePortar Catharina Calleman, Dunderbacken Anton Chernikov, Exponentials Martin Eguiguren, Common Stella Hansen, Økosamfundet Dyssekilde Johan Jacobsen, Æblevangen Finn Aage Jørgensen, Blikfanget Gaisar Khafizov, 908 Living Mette Kjörstad, Färdknäppen Stu Lown, Tribe Coliving Yaroslav Mudryi, HacknSleep Ryan Murphy, ALTA+ by Ollie Staffan Schartner, Omniplan Ashley Shannon, PodShare Alejandra Silva Parra, HållKollBo Morten Tønning, Andedammen Lauren Vega, Outpost Club Ida Villumsen, Arup Ryan Walsh, Aleph Living

PRASANNA KANNAN

ABOUT WCMT The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust (WCMT) runs the Churchill Fellowships, a unique programme of overseas research grants. These support UK citizens from all parts of society to travel the world in search of innovative solutions for today’s most pressing problems. The Fellowship was created by public subscription in 1965 as the living legacy of Sir Winston Churchill. Since then we have made 5,800 grants to inspiring individuals who possess the passion and commitment to make a real difference. For many, it has been a life-changing opportunity. At the heart of all this is a simple but enduring concept. We are empowering individuals to learn from the world, for the benefit of the UK. Today this idea is more valuable than ever.

ABOUT ME I am the cofounder of Native Finance, the first tech platform for Commercial Real Estate (CRE) finance in Europe. Over £800m in funding offers and around £100m in deal completions have been made through our platform since its launch in 2018. Investors in our business include VC fund Passion Capital and leading angel investors such as Lord Stevenson, former Chairman of HBOS and Brooks Newmark, founder of the UK arm of Apollo Global Management. Eileen Burbidge, Chair of Tech City and HM Treasury’s Special Envoy for Fintech, is currently a non-executive director. Prior to this I was the Portfolio Manager at Sir Elton John's charitable foundation (EJAF), where I led their work on social investment including launching one of the first HIV Social Impact Bonds in the world. I started my career at Goldman Sachs on their London trading floor in the Fixed Income, Currencies & Commodities (FICC) Division. I hold a MEng in Engineering, Economics and Management from the University of Oxford and a MPhil in Management from the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge. My final year undergraduate thesis was awarded the top mark at Oxford. My graduate thesis focussed on microfinance and gender inequality in South Asia and was published as a working paper by the Centre for Microfinance at IFMR, an affiliate of the Poverty Action Lab at MIT.

PRASANNA KANNAN

CONTENTS 1

GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 7

2.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................8 2.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................................................8 2.3 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................9 2. THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 EPIDEMIC....................................................................9 3

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 10

3.1 WHAT IS COLIVING? ................................................................................................. 10 3.2 UK VS GLOBAL CONTEXT ......................................................................................... 11 3.3 COLIVING & AFFORDABILITY .................................................................................... 13 3.4 AIMS & OBJECTIVES................................................................................................. 15 3.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 17 4

RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 18

4.1 “1ST GEN COLIVING” - SCANDINAVIAN FIELD TRIPS .................................................... 18 4.2 DENMARK ............................................................................................................. 19 4.3 SWEDEN ............................................................................................................... 25 4.4 “2ND GEN COLIVING” - USA FIELD TRIPS ..................................................................... 35 4.5 NEW YORK CITY .................................................................................................... 37 4.6 SAN FRANCISCO & LOS ANGELES .......................................................................... 43 5 5.1 5.2 6

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 50 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 51 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 59

PRASANNA KANNAN

GLOSSARY

1st Gen/2nd Gen Coliving: My definition of the two distinct post-war waves of coliving Allemansrätten: Scandinavian concept of “everyman’s right” Allmännyttigbostad: Swedish for “all man’s housing” or social housing Andel or Andelsbolig: a cooperative association of an apartment block whereby association members have the right to use a part of the property; a housing tenure particularly common in Denmark Bofællesskab: Danish term for “living community”, i.e. cohousing Bostadsrätt: Swedish housing tenure corresponding to owner-occupied Bostadsrättsförening: housing cooperatives, shares of which corresponds to ownership of an apartment in Swedish BTR: Build to Rent, a U.K. term for private residential housing purpose built for rental, corresponding to the multi-family sector in the USA Cohousing: intentional formation of communities that provide shared housing facilities to people often from similar backgrounds, typically relating to houses Coliving: intentional formation of communities that provide shared housing facilities to people often from similar backgrounds, typically relating to apartments (see cohousing); for the purposes of my report, I have defined it as communal housing models that emerged in the post-war period that aren’t built around family ties Ejer or Ejerforening: Danish housing tenure corresponding to owner-occupied Hyresgästföreningen: Tenant association which at the local level is entitled to periodic meetings with the landlord that has ownership of their apartment block Hyreskontrakt: Swedish housing tenure corresponding to renting Leje or Lejeforening: Danish housing tenure corresponding to renting Kollektiv: Scandinavian term for shared housing, though often having a negative connation as associated with hippie communes of the 1960s and 1970s Paleolithic: Period of human prehistory distinguished by the formation of stone tools, up until circa 11,650 years ago

PRASANNA KANNAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Coliving can be defined as the intentional formation of communities that provide shared housing facilities to people, often from similar backgrounds1. Arguably the most ancient form of living,2 as a modern concept it emerged during the Industrial Age, most commonly in the form of tenement housing as rapid urbanisation took place in Europe and the USA3. Although we are now observing similar trends elsewhere, particularly in Asia4, coliving in the developed world tends now to have a more innovative and youthful connation, often going hand in hand with technological advances currently seen in these countries5. This newer form of coliving is nonetheless driven by housing affordability6 and is often framed as symptomatic of the generational struggle between baby boomers and millennials. With housing cost to wages ratios increasing and home ownership rates plummeting7, coliving is now seen as a way to maintain living standards by offsetting smaller dwelling areas with high quality communal facilities. Scandinavia and the USA have pioneered such models8 but in varied cultural and geographical contexts; the purpose of my research and this report was to visit coliving sites in these countries and to understand what lessons these could share, if any, for the development of coliving schemes in the UK. In particular, I was keen to examine whether coliving could be a more sustainable and widespread solution for housing affordability in the UK and whether its impact would increase in the long term. I was also keen to understand whether coliving could become a model of home ownership and move beyond the rental form currently found in the UK.

McIntosh, C., ‘Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary’, Cambridge University Press, 2013 Boys Smith, N. ‘Co-Living and the Common Good’, RSA Action & Research Centre, 2018 3 Leigh Hester, J. ‘A Brief History of Co-Living Spaces’, Citylab, 2016 4 Sugihara, K., ‘Multiple Paths to Industrialization’, EESIPS, 2019 5 Souza, E., ‘What is Co-Living?’, ArchDaily, 2019 6 Johnston, P., ‘Coliving – a Millennial utopia or another sharing economy cash grab?’, The Fifth Estate, 2019 7 Fuster, N. et al, ' From a culture of homeownership to generation rent’, Journal of Youth Studies, 2019 8 Souza, E., loc.cit 2

PRASANNA KANNAN

2.1

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The main questions I aimed to answer through my research were the following: • • • • •

2.2

What were the conditions, if any, that allowed Scandinavia and the USA to emerge as early proponents of modern coliving? Has coliving proven to be a long-term housing solution in the countries where it was first developed in its modern form? Has coliving emerged as a form of home ownership in these countries? Do these developments hold lessons, if any, for the nascent coliving sector in the UK? If so, what policy guidance and recommendations can be made to ensure that such lessons are incorporated into the coliving sector?

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The main findings during the course of my research were the following: •

•

There were specific cultural, political and societal conditions that allowed Scandinavia and the USA to be at the forefront of the first and second generations of modern post-war coliving These two generations of coliving mirror two separate generations of people: baby boomer dreamers and pioneers who formed coliving developments to discover a sense of community, and millennial pragmatists who are attracted to the newer wave of coliving due to its affordability and flexibility For the 1st Gen of Scandinavian pioneers, coliving has proven to be a long-term solution to the extent that all existing developments are highly oversubscribed; although it is too early to tell, for the 2nd Gen it generally seems to be a more temporary solution for a more transient population Similarly, coliving for ownership has flourished amongst the 1st Gen, while it isn’t on offer for the 2nd Gen; it is worth noting however that the majority of coliving developments are based around tenancy and not around ownership There are specific cultural factors that led to the birth of modern coliving in Scandinavia, and yet its prevalence is limited; the 2nd Gen of modern coliving has greater potential for scale given that it directly solves a financial need

PRASANNA KANNAN

2.3

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on my findings the conclusions of my research and the lessons they hold for the UK coliving sector are the following: • • •

There is a significant undersupply of coliving to meet current demand, including in Scandinanvia where it has been a long-established housing tenure However, coliving will continue to be a niche housing solution in the long term, particularly due to cultural factors that stigmatise living in shared communities Coliving’s greatest potential for scale is in senior living, though this may require state support, as many of its benefits take the form of market externalities

Finally, based upon my finding and conclusions, my recommendations for the increased impact and proliferation of coliving in the UK are: • • • •

2.4

Greater clarity on coliving from the planning system, which in turn will allow it to become a more established and financeable housing tenure Greater institutional research into coliving, particularly in later living to conclusively demonstrate its health and societal benefits Greater public funding towards coliving for older people, particularly in monetising its benefits as a preventative measure for social care Greater normalisation of coliving in the public consciousness, through increased sector collaboration and the formation of networks and trade bodies

THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 EPIDEMIC

I was fortunate to complete my last field trips in December 2019, just months before the full extent of the Covid-19 epidemic was evident around the world. Although vaccine rollout has now begun, it is still unclear what the longer term impact of the epidemic will be on social distancing and housing policy. My report will therefore not directly reference the epidemic and will assume that society will revert to pre-pandemic behaviours once the virus has been contained. This is based on the fact that we have observed this trend in countries that have successfully contained the epidemic such as China, New Zealand and Taiwan.

PRASANNA KANNAN

INTRODUCTION

3.1

WHAT IS COLIVING?

Coliving is the oldest form of living known to humanity 9 . The first known human settlements date back to the Paleolithic with the most ancient settlement discovered (at time of writing) being Jebel Irhoud in Morocco10, which dates back to over 300,000 years ago. Although most of these prehistoric settlements have been found in caves, this is more a reflection of the fact that caves are ideal locations for persevering fossils and tools11. It is thought that our prehistoric ancestors used caves rarely, and mostly on a seasonal basis; the archaeological record is clear however that these early humans always lived together communally with shared resources and responsibilities around child rearing, foraging and hunting12. This is hardly surprising given that communal living is also evident in our closest mammalian cousins, the great apes, and indeed in most animals13. An argument can be made therefore that this is the most natural form of living and one that is intrinsic to our biological and cultural heritage; this is supported by the fact that communal living is central even today in tribal cultures based across all continents and climates, ranging from the Kalahari Bushmen through to the most remote Amazonian tribes14. It is a misconception however to believe that such modes of living faded away with agricultural advances or with the advent of sophisticated civilisations. Evidence of coliving has been found across ancient societies in Egypt, the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia 15 . It has been substantiated through the Middle Ages, and is even evident across many cultures today, particularly in Asia16. Although the majority of housing in human history was communal in nature and built around matrilocal or

Moore, J. ‘The Prehistory of Home’, University of California Press, 2012 Richter, D., et al, ‘The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco’, Nature, 2017 11 Isabella, J. ‘The Caveman’s Home Was Not a Cave’, Nautilus, 2013 12 Campbell, C. ‘Places of Many Generations’, Genealogy of Religion, 2015 13 Rubenstein, D. & Kealey, J. ‘Cooperation, Conflict, and the Evolution of Complex Animal Societies’, Nature Education Knowledge, 2010 14 Hames, B. & Raymond, J. ‘Culture Summary: Yanomami’, New Haven, 1995 15 Naveed, M. ‘Harappa: An Overview of Harappan Architecture and Town Planning’, Ancient History, 2014 16 Ronald, R. & Doling, J. ‘The Changing Shape of the East Asian Housing Model’, Housing East Asia, 2014 10

PRASANNA KANNAN

patrilocal extended family groups, often these homes would include unrelated residents, servants and boarders17. In fact, it can be argued that non-communal single family living is the historical aberration; after all, single family housing is a very recent and modern housing model. The term ‘nuclear family’ itself was only coined in 1947, and the post war period was when it was most prevalent with nuclear families peaking in the UK in 1962 at 52% of the population 18 . Nuclear families are themselves now in decline in advanced economies as increased divorce rates and decreased birth rates are leading to more single parent households and single person households19. For the purposes of this report, I will therefore define coliving as communal housing models that emerged in the post world war period that are not built around family ties; where I use the term cohousing, this will be coliving specifically in the form of houses as opposed to apartments. This is the definition most widely held in the public consciousness and it is this much more intentional and modern form of communal housing that will be the focus on my research. 3.2

UK VS GLOBAL CONTEXT

Now that we have defined coliving for the purpose of this report as its modern postwar form, we can now look at the innovations that have occurred globally since the 1940s and contextualise this in relation to the United Kingdom. Although the UK has not been at the forefront of modern coliving, it has been at the forefront of the single family home. Having birthed the Industrial Revolution, the UK was the first country in the world to see rapid urbanisation which led to a breakdown of the extended family as the most efficient form of living. Rooted in the Protestant ethic of the ‘godly home’, the London, Building and Metropolitan Acts throughout the 17th-19th centuries created a legislative framework

John G. ‘A World of Their Own Making: Myth, Ritual, and the Quest for Family Values’, Harvard, 1997 Knipe, E. et al ‘Families and households in the UK’, Office for National Statistics, 2014 19 Ortiz-Ospina, E. ‘The rise of living alone’, Our World in Data, 2019 18

PRASANNA KANNAN

that helped create cities built up of private and individual housing units. These acts even set the height and weight of different building classes and created a legal structure that would ultimately lead to the flourishing of the nuclear family household. Although boarding houses were popular in cities in the Victorian and interwar period20, the post war baby and housing boom, along with the rise of mortgage lending helped usher in the age of single family living. Large scale social housebuilding, followed in turn by urban ‘sink estates’, further cemented the concept of the single-family home as a safe space removed from other citizens21. Increasing crime rates, which peaked in many industrialised nations in the late 1980s and early 1990s, also helped reinforce preferences for private over communal living22. There were exceptions to this trend however, even in the UK. Indeed, the oldest coliving development in the UK actually dates from the interwar period – the Isokon Building in Hampstead, a 32 unit coliving development which was built in 1933-34 aimed to encourage communal, minimalist urban living in the modernist style of Le Corbusier. This was followed soon after by Kensal House, a 1937 housing estate inspired by Isokon built around an ‘urban village’ concept comprised of 2 and 3 bedroom units and a mix of communal facilities and services. However, such experiments were rare in the UK, with the Isokon (somewhat ironically) converted into private flats in 1969, right at the height of the ‘hippie’ movement seen across the developed world23. It was during the 1960s counterculture period that coliving in its modern form truly began to emerge, with Scandinavia leading the way. The region had a long history of communal living with ‘Fick’s Collective’ in Copenhagen and Hemgården in Stockholm, both examples of communal housing built around a central kitchen that emerged at the start of the 20th Century. Lacking a feudal history, having a cultural identity built around concepts such as allemansrätten24 and escaping relatively unscathed from the world wars, Scandinavia in many respects had the ideal ingredients of anywhere in the world for the first modern coliving schemes to emerge.

Rule, F. ‘The Worst Street in London’, Ian Allan Publishing, 2008 Hanley, L. ‘ Estates : an intimate history’, Granta, 2012 22 ibid 23 Burke, D. ‘The Lawn Road Flats: Spies, Writers and Artists’, Boydell & Brewer, 2014 24 Bengtsson, B. ‘Allemansrätten – Vad säger lagen?’, Naturvårdsverket, 2004 21

PRASANNA KANNAN

The first Scandinavian communities were cohousing communities comprised of single family houses as opposed to apartments; this and the intentionality of their formation set them apart from coliving as seen in previous generations. The first developments were constructed in Denmark and were inspired by a newspaper article making the case that “children should have one hundred parents”. Around 50 families inspired by this article came together to create the first modern bofællesskab or ‘living community’ developments in Sættedammen and Skråplanet in the early 1970s. Sweden followed soon after with cohousing developments created at Bergsjön, Prästgårdshagen and Stacken25. Two American architects, Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett, visited many cohousing communities in Scandinavia and wrote a treatise of how the coliving model they had seen could flourish in the USA26. Inspired by this, a community designed, built and occupied what can be termed the first modern coliving development in the USA at Muir Commons in Davis, California in 1991. At that same time, Scandinavia saw the emergence of a vast number of cohousing developments as political and societal conditions became highly favourable to their construction27. During this period, the UK saw almost no intentional cohousing or coliving schemes being constructed, while in Scandinavia, new developments actually peaked in the late 1980s. The first generation of coliving pioneers behind these developments were mostly idealistic in nature and often chose coliving as a way of life even when it was more expensive than single family housing. Meanwhile coliving was seen by the vast majority of society as a quirky housing model favoured by anti-establishment types, with many pioneers facing social stigma for their chosen way of life28.

3.3

COLIVING & AFFORDABILITY

However, housing markets globally were about to undergo a transformative shift that would usher in a second generation of coliving. Whereas the first generation of modern coliving was mostly led by idealistic pioneers attempting to recreate the communal

Larsen, H. ‘Three phases of Danish cohousing’, Housing Studies, 2019 McCamant, K. & Durrett, C. ‘Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach’, Ten Speed Press, 1994 27 Larsen, H., loc.cit 28 Jakobsen, P. & Larsen, H. ‘An alternative for whom? The evolution and socio-economy of Danish cohousing’, Urban Research & Practice, 2019 26

PRASANNA KANNAN

experiences they had during the 1960s/70s counterculture era, the second generation has embraced coliving as a tool to address housing affordability. The roots of this shift lay in the unwinding of statist policies under Thatcher in the 1980s which was replicated in social democracies around the world including Scandinavia and the USA. Although successful in many ways, with competitive private instincts helping to revitalise and transform housebuilding, an unforeseen consequence was the formation of large-scale house price bubbles that came to a head in the 2007-09 global financial crisis. Combined with demographic shifts, reduced working age populations, and lower asset yields, the subsequent crash cemented a new age of housing unaffordability. Home ownership amongst millennials is at recorded lows in the UK while overall home ownership is at an all-time high29. Housing affordability is often characterised now as a generational struggle between baby boomers and millennials, and this is borne out in the data. Overall home ownership in 1960 stood at 30.7%, 26.9% for 24-34 year olds and 34% amongst over 65s; in 2017 these numbers were 51.6%, 25.4% and 74.5% respectively30. Alongside this drop in home ownership amongst young people, rent to wage ratios are now almost 2.5x in London compared to where they were in the early 1980s in real terms. This again has a greater impact on millennials versus older residents who tend to own their own home. It is within this context, along with technological innovation that a second generation of modern coliving has come to the fore. It is driven much more by necessity than idealism, and in my research I will explore the lessons to be learnt for the UK from both of these generations of modern coliving. For the purposes of this report, I will therefore define ‘1st Gen Coliving’ as the first wave of post-war coliving that emerged in the late 1960s through to the 1980s, and ‘2nd Gen Coliving’ as the second, contemporary wave we see today.

29 30

Statista Research, ‘Age distribution of home owners in England (UK) in 2018/2019, Statista, 2020 ibid

PRASANNA KANNAN

3.4

AIMS & OBJECTIVES

The fundamental purpose of my fellowship was to apply lessons learnt during my travels aboard to see what conclusions and recommendations I could make towards the coliving sector in the UK. I feel it is helpful therefore to briefly touch upon where our country stands within this 1st Gen/2nd Gen coliving shift. The UK, like much of the western world, saw a similar counterculture wave during the 1960s and 1970s, as did Scandinavia and the USA31. However, like the USA, this did not lead to more formalised and state-sponsored coliving communities being developed in the 1980s and 1990s, as it did in Scandinavia. In many respects, Scandinavia is notable as the only proponent of 1st Gen coliving, with specific cultural and political factors facilitating its rise in a way that would simply not have been possible at the time in the UK or the USA. What was specific to Britain however was the unique housing stock she possessed from her time as a global superpower; for example the first documented commune in the U.K. was Crow Hall, which was formed in a Grade II listed “Cromwellian” country mansion eventually redeveloped into flats in the 1990s32.

Above: Crow Hall in the 1960s alongside its communal spa (right)

Lee, S. ‘The Commune Movement during the 1960s and the 1970s in Britain, Denmark and the United States’, The University of Leeds, 2016 32 Coates, C. ‘Searching for the first hippie commune’, Communities Britannica, 2013 PRASANNA KANNAN

This high quality but often dilapidated period housing stock led to another uniquely British phenomenon, in comparison to other developed economies: that of squatting. Whereas during the 1970s and 1980s Scandinavia was pioneering 1st Gen Coliving, Britain was witnessing massive industrial decline, falling living standards and a much more anarchistic movement of squatters who illegally formed communities in various cities around the UK33. The UK, like the rest of the world, missed the wave of 1st Gen coliving pioneered by Scandinavia. However, it has been close to the forefront of the 2nd Gen wave which originated in the USA, and primarily caters to young professionals. British developers such as The Collective are making a mark on the global stage and have made the UK the leader in Europe in terms of coliving delivery and supply34. In my research I will therefore aim to explore both 1st Gen and 2nd Gen coliving in the two regions that pioneered it – Scandinavia and the USA – and attempt to extract learnings for the nascent coliving sector in the UK, which can be characterised as wholly 2nd Gen. In doing so I wish to find answers to the following questions: • • • • •

To answer these questions efficiently I split my trips, which were 4 in total, into 2 distinct segments: the first were trips to Denmark and Sweden to explore early 1st Gen developments in coliving; and the second were trips to New York City, San Francisco

33 34

Marsland, J. ‘Squatting: The Fight for Decent Shelter, 1970s–1980s’, Britain and the World, 2018 Lustigman, R. et al ‘European Coliving Index 2019’, Jones Lang LaSalle, 2019

PRASANNA KANNAN

and Los Angeles to explore new, innovative 2nd Gen developments built around affordability and technology. By organising my trips in this way, I hoped to contrast both the cultural contexts between the generations and regions. It seemed fitting yet unsurprising that I would focus on the idealistic 1st Gen in the more communal and socialist setting of Scandinavia, and on the practical 2nd Gen in the more capitalist and entrepreneurial setting of the USA. 3.5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

My research methodology comprised mostly of field research and interviews with inhabitants, managers and curators of the coliving developments I visited. I took detailed field notes and photographs during my visits which I then synthesised into my research findings and conclusions. In some instances where a site visit was not possible due to timing or staffing issues, I scheduled a phone interview instead. I also spoke to some members from the coliving community here in the UK to further contextualise my report.

PRASANNA KANNAN

RESEARCH FINDINGS

As discussed in my introduction, my research was built around 2 sets of field trips with the aim of learning from both generations of post-war coliving; the idealistic ‘1st Gen’ that originated in Scandinavia and the contemporary and far more pragmatic ‘2nd Gen’ that is most advanced in the USA. I will first provide the historical and societal context for each location before summarising my findings from each. In doing so I hoped to discover whether the countries in question had any unique characteristics in helping coliving to flourish, whether coliving was proving to be a long term solution, and if such conditions could be replicated here in the UK.

4.1

‘1 S T GEN COLIVING’ - SCANDINAVIAN FIELD TRIPS

Scandinavia is the birthplace of modern coliving35. Like much of the western world, the 1960s counterculture era saw an emergence of numerous experiments in communal living36. However, Scandinavia was unique in that many of the dreamers and pioneers of these new forms of housing went on to create more durable and permanent developments, unlike anywhere else in the world. Their success was due to a number of characteristics that are uniquely Scandinavian. Firstly, the region has a sense of community that is engrained in their cultural DNA; for example, Scandinavia is the only part of Europe that has never had a feudal system, even though it was and remains under monarchic rule today37. This communal aspect has famously manifested itself politically, with some of the most socialist policy frameworks seen in the world. It has also manifested itself in the housing sector through the prevalence of housing tenures that are unique to Scandinavia. Secondly, the region has been until recently, racially homogeneous. Having not held colonial ambitions since Medieval times, the region saw very little immigration until the

Vestbro, D. & Horelli, L. ‘Design for gender equality - the history of cohousing ideas and realities’, Built Environment, 2012 36 ibid 37 Andrén, A. ‘State and Towns in the Middle Ages: The Scandinavian Experience’, Theory and Society, 1989 PRASANNA KANNAN

1990s 38 . This helped reinforce a sense of national identity and trust which was arguably crucial to the development of 1st Gen coliving. Lastly, having escaped the World War period relatively unscathed, Scandinavians were under less pressure to rebuild and therefore had more resources and will to experiment with their housing policy in comparison to their European counterparts.

4.2

DENMARK

These factors were what inspired people like Jan GudmandHøyer, one of the original architects of the coliving movement in Scandinavia 39. Dissatisfied with isolated sub-urban and urban living, he decided to design communal housing built around privately owned home with shared facilities. An architect by trade, he was keen however to emphasise that, “Cohousing is not related to a certain architectural style. It is a lifestyle”.

“Cohousing is not related to a certain architectural style. It is a lifestyle”

This theme of young idealistic dreamers going to form intentional - Jan Gudmandcommunities was one that I saw repeatedly during my trips to Høyer, Scandinavia, starting with my first ever visit, which was to the Scandinavian ecovillage of Dyssekilde. People in Demark were also inspired coliving pioneer by the anarchist self-declared nation of Christiania in Copenhagen 40 , both for its architectural concepts and its self-reliant and communal idealism. 4.2.1 CASE STUDY: DYSSEKILDE ECO VILLAGE

Dyssekilde is unique however in that it was the 1st eco village in Denmark which aimed to marry communal living with sustainable farming principles. Owned by a cooperative, each resident purchases their house floor area in m2, while the land around the houses is owned collectively. Every resident is a member of the cooperative, though only a third of members are active in all communal aspects, which are entirely voluntary. With over 200 people in the community, resident members have come from all over the world including from Australia, Germany and Italy.

Calmfors, L. et al. ‘Integrating immigrants into the Nordic labour markets’, Nordregio, 2019 Milman, D. ‘Where it all began: cohousing in Denmark’, The Co-Housing Company, 1994 40 Jakobsen, P. & Larsen, H., loc.cit 39

PRASANNA KANNAN

Many of the rules that regulate the development are not codified; this was done intentionally, as it was felt that any conflicts can and should be resolved through negotiation as well as personal relationships. With quarterly board meetings and workgroups, the development also has its own wind turbines, sustainability grown livestock and communal allotments for all. I was fortunate enough to speak with Niels, the first member of Dyssekile who was still a resident today. My host Stella who kindly showed me around moved into the development for ecological reasons, as did Georg, a younger resident who had come over from Germany 7 years prior.

Above: Pigs at Dyssekilde’s sustainable farm and one of their famous domed houses

Niels reminisced about the early days of the project, which started off in 1983 as a spiritual commune before it narrowed down to its ecological focus. Inspired by the dome houses of Christiana, Dyssekilde almost never came to fruition, hitting near bankruptcy until a developer became a part of the community and encouraged selfbuilding to bring the project to life. The original community purchased 5 hectares of land from a farmer who had tired of agricultural life. My conversation with Niels led me to realise that Scandinavia had experienced a resurgence of 1960s idealism in the 1980s, when baby boomers were older and more financially secure, thereby allowing them to fulfil dreams around communal living that PRASANNA KANNAN

they had decades earlier. Most of the coliving schemes I visited in Scandinavia were formed in the 1980s, with many of the original inhabitants still residing there today, though now in a much later stage of life than when they originally began. Some of the older members were unhappy about newer members who they felt didn’t subscribe to the same foundational ideals that they did. Georg, one of the newer members, did share in the communal ethos that birthed Dyssikilde but felt that this was something that was inherent to Danish society. It was during my conversations with him that I was first made aware of the concept of the Andel or Andelsbolig; a communal housing tenure that had emerged in Denmark in the late 19th Century in the farming community. Andels were quite a common tenure across Danish society, and unlike the UK was recognised by clearing banks and institutional lenders and even prevalent in much of Copenhagen41. 4.2.2 CASE STUDY: BLIKFANGET

I observed similar trends in visits that followed such as at Blikfanget, which was formed as 16 houses in 1989 in Birkerod, a town with around 7 cohousing developments. Blikfanget was founded by 6 couples and singletons who lived nearby and formed an Andelsbofællesskab (Andel association) to bring their project to life. After a few years of planning they decided on a model whereby each household holds a 1/16 share of the cooperative that owns the entire community, with no age restrictions on residents. Another theme that began to emerge from this visit onwards was the realisation that many 1st Gen coliving schemes were actually quite expensive, with many of the founding members bringing their projects to life for a sense of community, not affordability. Many of the developments were in peri-urban settings with residents often from the Greater Copenhagen area who wanted a change from city life. Perhaps due to the fact that residents yearned for this sense of community, many of the developments I visited in Denmark were for ownership and not for rent. Blikfanget interestingly also had obligations on its residents, such as residents being obliged to make food 1 or 2 times a month for communal evening dinners. As it was fælleshus (cohousing), residents were required to attend fællesmode (community meetings) as well as community weekends that involved looking after trees on the site for example. Residents could choose from 5 sizes of homes ranging from 65-130sqm in area that

Busck, S. & Poulsen, P. ‘Danmarks historie - i grundtræk’, Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2002

PRASANNA KANNAN

required 2 to 3.3 million Danish Krone (£240-400k) in deposits. The community of Overblikket nearby was similarly inclined but focussed more on ownership of individual homes, as opposed to ownership in a cooperative. 4.2.3 CASE STUDY: ÆBLEVANGEN & ANDEDAMMEN

My other visits in Denmark to Æblevangen and Andedammen reinforced much of what I had already seen in the country. Æblevangen started off as a newspaper advert posted by 2 families which led to almost 150 residents forming a community where all houses are privately owned, but with residents holding a share of the land and the central common room area. Each house came with a 6sqm garden and a 1/36th land holding. Designed by an architect who also worked on Skraaplanet, one of the oldest cohousing schemes in Denmark, the houses on offer were high quality and comparable in price to a single family home.

Above: Coliving units at Blikfanget (left) and the communal dining room at Andedammen

As my host Johan pointed out, once again the development had been founded by young families who have then aged yet mostly remained. The general satisfaction of long-term residents was high, with Johan even quipping that “they’ll have to carry me out” and that he planned to stay for the rest of his life. Interestingly, the senior citizens living there today were once considered radicals, with their development even opposed by the municipality who felt that it seemed akin to a ‘luxury Christiania’. Andedammen was the first development I went to where under occupancy was an issue, and children growing up had led to changing dynamics in the development over time. My host Morten saw cohousing as lying somewhere between the Andel and the PRASANNA KANNAN

Kollektiv, with the latter the name used for the original communes of the counterculture era. Interestingly, a film called Kollektiv was released in Denmark in 2016 chronicling that exact era and showing a dark side to the communal living movement, something that the residents I spoke to felt was untrue and a portrayal that they disapproved of. 4.2.4 FINDINGS SUMMARY & UK COMPARISON

Although many of the developments I had visited were peri-urban in nature, one thing that struck me was how prevalent cohousing and communal living was in comparison to the UK. There were eco villages and over 60s cohousing even in central areas of Copenhangen such as Kloevermarken and Nørrebro as well as non-residential developments such as the communally designed park Superkilen which aimed to promote cultural and racial tolerance. My last meeting in Copenhagen hinted as to why this was the case and was arguably the most informative of my entire trip. I met with Eva and Ida at Arup, who answered my more technical questions around communal living in Denmark. As they pointed out, in Denmark they had both “never lived anywhere without a communal aspect!” Interestingly, even those renting a flat in Copenhagen often had communal obligations, such as cleaning the stairs once a month, which would be unthinkable for apartment residents here in the UK. They highlighted that there were broadly 3 tenures of housing in Denmark: firstly Ejer, or owner occupied, which still entailed an ejerforening or monthly fee towards an association that could cover the whole building or a staircase. In Denmark this would nonetheless involve land value taxes. The second of course was the Andel, which came with a cap on the price per sqm as fixed by the government; similarly to the Ejer these came with Andelsudgift (andel expenses), which essentially pay the interest-only mortgage payments for the communal loan on the property. Perhaps 70-80% of all apartments in Copenhagen are Andels, with clearing banks lending to Andels given they are such a common housing tenure. All ownership data and information are public in Andels, with a share ownership essentially a share in the cooperative that owned a property. Interestingly the residents of a building can come together to change the status of their building into an Andel, which can often be advantageous from a financial perspective in the form of reduced interest payments due to the collectivisation of mortgage debt; this however made Andels very popular and difficult to access, with some properties including both Andel and standard rental units with different pricing leading to insider/outsider conflicts and preferential treatment in favour of renters by landlords. PRASANNA KANNAN

“Only dead fish swim with the current” - Christiania Freetown, 1960s collective and inspiration for Danish coliving

The final tenure was Leje or renting. This was the same as everywhere except that a resident had a lot more rights in Denmark, especially if you lived in a property for more than 2 years. This meant you could stay as long as you liked if you kept up your rental payments. All three tenures were observed in Almentnyttigeboliger, or social housing.

To summarise and contextualise my findings in Denmark, I was amazed at the regulatory complexity and sophistication of housing versus the UK. Whereas much of our home ownership legislation stems from the time of the Magna Carta42, with commonhold never taking off, Denmark had seen the emergence of a highly prevalent communal tenure which was recognised by the largest institutional investors. Moreover, these tenures had emerged organically over decades during peacetime, in contrast to the post war reforms that continue to have a great impact on British housing to this day. Much of this seemed to come down to the cultural norms unique to Scandinavia which often favoured the community over the individual. Interestingly these norms were starting to fray in recent years with the region seeing large scale immigration for the first time; racial tensions and the growth of far-right movements are leading to greater introspection amongst many Scandinavians around their cultural and national identity. Arguably, due to its colonial past Britain has been on this journey of multiculturalism for longer, which may have also made coliving harder to form in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s when it really came to the fore in Denmark. Indeed Britain was deeply scarred by the spectre of Peter Rachmann43, the rogue landlord who exploited immigrant communities in Britain through tenement housing in the 1960s, with ‘Rachmanism’ leaving communal living with highly negative connotations. This lack of trust and community cohesion, an overhang from the colonial era, may have also contributed to the relative lack of innovation in housing in Britain, whose private rental sector stands apart from its North European neighbours. I got the chance to test these assumptions through my next trip, to another Scandinavian country with cultural similarities and a comparable housing history – Sweden.

Hughes, D. ‘A Brief History of the Magna Carta’, House of Lords Library, 2015 Davis, J. ‘Rents and Race in 1960s London: New Light on Rachmanism’, Twentieth Century British History, 2001

PRASANNA KANNAN

4.3

SWEDEN

Before I went to Sweden I expected to see much of what I had seen already in Denmark; after all, Sweden’s first coliving developments emerged soon after the first modern coliving developments were founded in Denmark in the 1960s, and both countries shared very similar cultural norms around communal living. However, my trip to Sweden showed that I had underestimated the impact that the state and policy could have upon the course of housing within a nation’s history. It is worth noting at the outset that unlike my trip to Denmark, where I visited a number of urban and peri-urban developments across Zealand, my visits in Sweden were entirely in the Stockholm municipal area. This may have led inadvertently to a more localised view of coliving than if I had visited developments in other major Swedish cities such as Gothenburg and Malmö. 4.3.1

CASE STUDY: KOLLEKTIVHUSET RIO

Having said that, my very first visit in Stockholm, to Kollektivhuset Rio showed the marked policy differences between the two countries. Unlike the picturesque and borderline rural cohousing developments I had observed across all my trips to Denmark, Kollektivhuset Rio was a set of coliving apartments in Östermalm, one of the more affluent neighbourhoods in Stockholm. Formed in 1983, Kollektivhuset Rio is a BTR social housing development. It was founded by the Stockholm municipal authority as an experiment, in marked contrast to the idealistic and intentional communities formed by families that I had observed in Denmark. Set up as an intergenerational community, Kollektivhuset Rio was an incredibly successful experiment with long waiting lists (100-1 oversubscribed, and on average a 23.5 year wait) before one could get a property – because, as in the words of my host Birgit, “no one wants to leave”. Interestingly, at least for the purposes of my research, in 2003 an option to buy was offered to residents but this was refused by the community who wished to maintain the development as a rental block. I asked Birgit what she felt made Sweden and Scandinavia unique in terms of its housing in comparison to other parts of Europe, and indeed the entire world. Her response was very enlightening, as she felt that the unique history of the region was crucial; having been agrarian until the 1930s, Scandinavia had experienced much more much more recent mass urbanisation and incredible catch-up growth compared with the rest of Europe. PRASANNA KANNAN

This led to a surge of housing demand in the 1960s and the region, relatively unscathed by the World Wars, saw large scale social housebuilding comparable to the post war era in Britain. Sweden for example saw almost 1 million homes delivered during that decade, with the overall quality higher than that of Britain, though there are exceptions such as Rinkiby which resembles infamous ‘sink estates’ of that era. Interestingly the tenure used in Kollektivhuset Rio was almost identical to a hyreskontrakt, or a rental angreement, with one special clause that obligated residents to community participation. The development was built out by Svenska Bus, one of three main state housebuilders in Stockholm, who constructed 4 blocks of which 2 were for coliving and 2 for elderly care. In 2004 the care homes were sold out into a separate SPV called MiCasa and the development was split into two separate yet conjoined entities.

“The cohousing idea developed explosively [in Sweden] when young people from 1968 and onwards adopted the idea of communal living. Their movement challenged the bourgeois nuclear family, which presupposed a housewife.” - Dick Urban Vestboro, Professor Emeritus at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

It is worth noting at this point some crucial differences between ‘social housing’ in Sweden and as it is defined in the UK. In Sweden, Allmännyttigbostad (literally, all man’s housing) is open to everyone and is delivered by Allmännyttigt Bostadsföretag or public housing corporations. These tend to be for profit limited companies entirely owned by local municipalities, thereby ensuring that they retain social objectives. These corporations however have no explicit financial advantages over private housebuilders, unlike housing associations in the UK who are charitable entities that can access housing grants and also borrow through the Public Loan Works Board via local authorities44. In this way, housing in Sweden is genuinely treated as a public good, and though more affluent Swedes will choose the private sector compared to less affluent ones and vice versa, there is no explicit characterisation of social housing as lower income housing.

Parker, R. ‘Funding affordable housing’, Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2008

PRASANNA KANNAN

Above: Social housing meets coliving at Kollektivhuset Rio and the shared kitchen at Färdknäppen

I was fortunate to then have lunch with a few residents including my host Birgit, a resident who had been there from the very beginning. It was interesting to hear from her that there was much more social stigma when they started out. Residents often had to educate people that it wasn’t a hippie commune, though she felt perceptions were different now; however, coliving was still rare in Sweden, even if the general perception in society was now more positive. The rules that governed the community were similarly trapped in time, with many negotiated during its foundation with little change since. The community were also entitled to Lokalhyresgastforening (local tenancy group) bi-annual meetings with SB, the developer and owner/operator. This collective bargaining scheme was also backed up by Hyresgastforening, the national association for tenants. This was one of the main ways that Swedish and Scandinavian housing varies greatly from the UK and the rest of the world. Although almost all housing was Bostadsrätt (ownership) or Hyreskontrakt (tenancy) based, tenants were afforded far more rights than they were in Britain. When I explained to my hosts that the majority of rental housing in the UK was based around ASTs (assured shorthold tenancies), they were stunned at the idea that a landlord could evict a tenant on a six-monthly basis without giving any justification. In Sweden tenancy agreements were for life – as long as the

PRASANNA KANNAN

rent was being paid, the landlord had no right to evict his or her tenant. This level of protection meant that there was a black market of (illegal but socially acceptable) subletting of hyreskontrakts, which led to considerable insider/outsider issues. Interestingly, Sweden did have its version of the Andel that was prevalent in Danish coliving but it was rarely utilised. Although people occasionally leave Kollektivhuset Rio, often due to changing life circumstances, most residents loved the coliving element and stayed for the long term. Interestingly some residents such as Peter didn’t choose coliving; he accepted a flat in the block after waiting 23 years for social housing, for which there was only one list. Although he initially had reservations, he has found the community a pleasant and rewarding experience. I would often observe this pattern during many of my visits, of residents who accidently fell into coliving and were sceptical at the outset but were now converts. Kollektivhuset Rio had communal meals on Friday evenings which were nonobligatory and in which only 20-30 of the 112 apartments took part; there was a communal restaurant, with one the biggest disputes amongst residents being a mandatory lunch credit allocation which was eventually scrapped. However there was generally strong camaraderie amongst resident even during such disputes. 4.3.2 CASE STUDY: FÄRDKNÄPPEN

My second visit to Färdknäppen more closely resembled the cohousing developments I had seen in Denmark. An initial group led by Monica William-Olsen identified the plot for the development, which was founded in 1987. They were helped by Mats Hulth, a social democrat politician who really drove the cohousing agenda in the 1980s, thereby giving political buy-in. Like Kollektivhuset Rio the development was built out and owned by FB or Familjebostader, one of the three public housing cooperatives that build the majority of housing in Stockholm. The development had 41 apartments with 57 residents in total, of whom 12 were couples. Residents pay FB for their room and communal areas at a market rate; the food however is highly subsidised because of communal cooking and eating together is mandatory. Money for any work done or savings due to communal electric bills etc are put into the community budget which are then spent on shared facilities. As part of their Lokalhyresgastforening residents have 4 meetings a year with FB who always mention how well kept the property is compared to others due to the fact that it is coliving. The residents also have a separate maintenance agreement – a forvaltningkontrakt – with FB alongside their rental agreement. PRASANNA KANNAN

Residents are also members of two associations, “one economic and one idealistic” to ensure that Färdknäppen’s governance is protected alongside its economic interests. Along with KomBo it was one of the few coliving developments where architects and residents worked together on its design. Previously new residents were chosen using a lottery system, but now they are chosen by the residents’ board. My host Mette pointed out that even though Sweden was one of the pioneers of 1st Gen coliving, only around 0.05% of Swedish people currently live in coliving, which totalled around 50 developments. When I pressed my hosts why coliving hadn’t taken off at scale their reply was that it was simply more lucrative to develop standard build to sell units, and that coliving historically had flourished only when advocacy organisations pressed for it; indeed, we have observed similar trends in the UK with Community Land Trusts such as RUSS currently in Lewisham. Political leaning, as I alluded to previously, was actually quite important given the time that it takes for a scheme to be delivered; Stockholm currently has a mayor pushing for more coliving units to be delivered in the 2020s. Gothenburg also designates 5% of all new planning consents in social housing towards coliving or custom build. Mette pointed out some interesting social changes that had occurred in the decades since she arrived at Färdknäppen. Because the development is so popular, rooms are typically vacated when people die – though 3 residents left due to severe dementia – after which current members get first dibs on vacated units, followed by external members lists. The problem with this process is that the development really needs younger people to thrive, with the Catch 22 that younger people do not realise the advantages of communal facilities until it is too late. Mette cited the Compassionate Frome project in Somerset as a good example of how communal living can help alleviate isolation for older people, leading to greatly improved health outcomes. Mette also felt that the size of the development was important and that 40 to 60 flats may be the ideal size to avoid conflict but still foster a sense of community. The other significant shift that had occurred over the years at Färdknäppen was the passing of mostly male residents which meant that it was now very female dominated, leading to the remaining male residents potentially feeling intimidated. 4.3.3

CASE STUDY: DUNDERBACKEN

This point around gender, and the fact that female residents tend to dominate as communities age and male residents pass away, was not something I anticipated PRASANNA KANNAN

coming up during my visits. However it also came up at Dunderbacken, a development of 61 flats and 70 people that was directly inspired by Färdknäppen, which my host Catharina termed ‘the mothership’ for older age coliving developments. FB is also the owner here, but the landlord was the Kooperativ Huresret (cooperative association) which was also in charge of rental management; however this is being moved over to FB as rent collection from the community was found to be too personal.

“Cohousing also solves the ‘life puzzle’ – Livpussel – of working parents.” - Catharina, Dunderbacken resident

The rent charged to residents is the market rate, though a lot of other amenities are subsidised; my host Catharina felt that political leaning was perhaps not as important a factor as some coliving developments were established during conservative governments. She had different stories as to how residents found out and arrived at the scheme; one lady was actually in a commune, while another was recommended to live there by her daughter. Like every other coliving development I had been to Scandinavia, flats very rarely came up as no on leaves, and there was a long waiting list for vacant units.

Catharina felt that this was unsurprising given that more people than ever lived alone in Scandinavia, due to a combination of divorce rates and ageing populations, which meant that there was more of a need for companionship.

Above: Interior shots from a typical coliving apartment at Dunderbacken PRASANNA KANNAN

Although the collective movements of the 1960-70s was an inspiration, coliving was very different in its practical application particularly around ageing. Catharina also felt that it could potentially be empowering for women as they could agitate for gender equality more easily in the community setting, something that was an important factor in the original communes of the 1970s. Coliving also solves the “life puzzle” – or Livpussel – that arises with two working parents who cannot afford childcare, but will one day need to downsize. So if there are so many benefits to coliving, why wasn’t it more commonplace? The simple answer, according to Catharina, is that it was “just messier to build out coliving” for developers, particularly on the management side. This is compounded by the 2nd/3rd order sub-letting that is often common in Stockholm due to the protections offered to the Hyreskontrakt or tenancy holder. Other non-financial reasons why it hasn’t spread more include that a lot of people simply didn’t know of its existence. In Catharina’s view, Denmark is different to Sweden in that ownership is more important for coliving there, with this key difference leading to distinct class differences of coliving residents between Denmark and Sweden – something I had observed in my own travels. 4.3.4 CASE STUDY: TREPORTAR

TrePortar, my last visit to a coliving development in Sweden was built by SH in the 1980s. My host Sven who, unlike his wife, was keen on coliving managed to swap their tenancy through one of the two main secondary swap sites in Sweden lägenhetsbyte.se and björnsbytare.se. He did not regret the decision at all and greatly enjoyed life at TreProtar; in his opinion, a lot more people would choose coliving if they knew about it, and he felt that lack of awareness was one of the main issues it wasn’t able to flourish. He conceded however that there was still some stigma around coliving, with people still conflating it with 1960s hippie communes. Interestingly, like at Dunderbacken, the residents of TrePortar until recently managed themselves; they have now joined SH’s waiting lists so that they can access a wider housing pool, as they felt that self-management had led to a monoculture. During his time there Sven had noticed the importance of flexible, optional levels of community engagement to cater for everyone, as prescriptive approaches can lead to conflicts. I then had dinner with the community and spoke with Dagne, one of the founders of TrePortar, who felt that the political environment of the 1980s was the main reason that kollektivhuset was relatively common in Sweden; the politicians of the day decided that of the three major state housebuilders, SH would be the one to push coliving. PRASANNA KANNAN

Dagne and her fellow founding members didn’t even know the tenure existed; indeed TrePortar was not originally intended to be a coliving scheme, as the ground floor was set to be commercial premises before the founding group lobbied for coliving. The founders were part of a special coliving bostadtkern (housing queue) that no longer exists. In fact, in the 1980s it was seen as easier to get a coliving unit than singlefamily housing, and so some people were in the queue simply as a hedge to get a property. SH currently manages the building with each resident a member of the forening (association) for 500kr / year alongside a separate rental contract with SH. Having lived in TrePortar since its founding for over 30y Dagne felt that coliving, like all housing, has its ups and downs – as she recalls after 9y there was a pessimism in the development and so they had a 10y celebration to reinvigorate the place. Interestingly the pessimism stemmed because some people wanted to incorporate economic gains for the original founders, while others were against it. Originally there were communal meals 5 days a week but then it went down to 3 and back up to 4 as meals are now open to external members. TrePortar is 5% more expensive than general SH flats due to its common areas, but with food etc works out as the same. Dagne felt that it was hard to sustain the energy within a coliving development with a number of people leaving during that 9/10y funk; arguably 10y ago the scheme essentially catered for a club of friends, whereas now having joined SH’s wider lists it was more open and potentially fairer. Nonetheless first refusal on recently vacated flats go to existing residents - then to the wider SH list – with applicants then met by 3 members of the board who can then veto them joining the development. As to why coliving was not more prevalent, Dagne felt that it was a political question and also not a big enough issue versus other housing problems; people also have a lot of preconceived notions about coliving which may inhibit its scale. Dagne once met with SH chief executives who were very proud of TrePortar, and who felt it was the best managed development in its locality of Skaerpneck as it was coliving; in Dagne’s words “this is an oasis in Skaerpneck”, with greater longevity of residents due to their ties with the community. 4.3.5

FINDINGS SUMMARY & UK COMPARISON

As I concluded my visits I was struck by the incredible insider/outsider effect I noticed in coliving developments in Sweden; political will meant that there was a spate of development in the 1980s, which then tailed off, leading to scarcity with demand for coliving units far outweighing supply.

PRASANNA KANNAN

Because of the rights afforded by hyreskontrakts, tenants of these units were in essence owners, who also had first rights on recently vacated units and veto powers on new residents. Although my hosts were incredibly nice, many of them acknowledged that they now seemed to enjoy great privileges simply due to the fact that they were first movers into coliving. Younger people like Sven who wished to enjoy a coliving environment – or indeed the luxuries of a hyreskontrakt – simply couldn’t or had to wait up to decades for the right to do so. To better understand and contextualise my trip I also had the chance to speak with a few experts passionate about coliving, but not residents themselves. I first met with Staffan, an architect who gave me a better understanding of the legal and regulatory frameworks for coliving in Sweden. It made me realise how different land ownership was in comparison to the UK and indeed to most countries. Partly due to Sweden’s relatively late urbanisation, land was often purchased on a compulsory basis from farmers by municipalities and then built upon. In the 1920s and 1930s, cooperative structures called Bostadsrättsförening originated which allowed individuals to own a share of the cooperative which then corresponded to the ownership of a property. However, even today, almost no one actually owns their property outside a cooperative structure, with only 1000 or so flats directly owned by people in Sweden. These Bostadsrättsförening used to have very strict controls around the sale of shares, and though this has changed, Staffan pointed out that a lot of the controls favour natives and penalise immigrant communities who are often unable to break into bostadsrätt or hyrestkontrak tenures. He also pointed out the challenge in finding sites for coliving developments, which much like the UK often depends on developer track record, lot sizes and taxes amongst other factors. Alejandra, founder of HållKollBo, a startup coliving developer confirmed these issues to me in our meeting, pointing out that they hadn’t found a suitable site in over 6 years of searching. Other reasons she cited as difficulties in coliving becoming more mainstream included that it was too easy to stick to the norm in housebuilding and industrial inertia; that housing innovation was tricky to pull off due to the conservative nature of the industry, meaning that only those with financial resources are able to experiment, reminding me of the expensive Copper Lane coliving scheme in Islington.

PRASANNA KANNAN

Financing has been the main barrier for HållKollBo, with the need for third party funds often the blocker. In Alejandra’s view even in Stockholm the planning framework is very conservative, with NIMBYism and public consultations often blocking construction of coliving schemes. My final meeting was with Anton Chernikov of the Exponentials, a strategic consultancy focussed on coliving and BTR both in Scandinavia and here in the UK. In Anton’s words it was actually easier to do communal living in the UK as “Scandinavia has too much regulation while the UK has too little”.

“For it to be a real community you can’t just have a pool table and an open bar... it has to be deeper than that” - Anton Chernikov,

In terms of blockers for coliving, firstly it was the fact Exponentials that it was really difficult to find buildings and sites because of regulations. The whole market has been geared up for build to sell as opposed to build to rent, though this was of course changing in the UK; Anton felt that the rise of BTR and more mixed use development was needed to relieve people of commuting and living all over the place away from their work. Coliving alongside mixed used development he felt could also help connect developments between urban centres and rural centres which in turn could reconnect people with nature. As for the need for coliving, Anton quipped that “if I could speak to a politician, I would say forget about housing and think of mental health”. Studies have shown the positive impacts that communal living can have towards mental health and combatting loneliness45; however, that caveat being that a development simply can’t just fake the community element and that “for it to be real community you can’t just have a pool table and an open bar... it has to be deeper than that.” It also came down to the motivations behind coliving; to quote Anton, “there are two reasons we share - either because we have to or because we want to - student halls are a case of the former”. In his view, the most common reason people look to go into coliving after being an international student, or for convenience was more due to the underlying changes they were going through and the link that had with their mental wellness.

Quinio, V. & Burgess, G. ‘Is co-living a housing solution for vulnerable older people?’, Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research, 2019 PRASANNA KANNAN

During his work on Tech Farm, one of the newer and modern coliving developments in Stockholm, he found that leadership on culture and mental health at the outset was very important for the longevity of a scheme. This cultural formation was particularly important as otherwise “if neighbours only meet in conflict it reduces common areas to no-man lands”. Our meeting ended with his parting line that, “it’s not about coliving, it’s about living”, particularly when thinking about millennials who wanted to be mobile, were resigned to being lifelong renters, but who would still like exposure to property but not necessarily through the chains of a mortgage. My non-site meetings, particularly with younger proponents of coliving in Sweden was a good way to round off my visit. It gave me a new perspective of how the “1st Gen” of early pioneers in Scandinavia, now in older age, had become a part of the very housing system that they rebelled against in their youth. It also clarified how vastly different the importance of affordability was between the 1st and 2nd Gen of coliving developments; whereas for the 1st Gen it was barely a consideration, for the 2nd Gen it was often the main motivation for its establishment. It made me realise that the two generations of coliving corresponded broadly to the two generations of people, and in a way reflected the baby boomer vs millennial tensions that we see across all advanced economies today.

4.4

‘2 N D GEN COLIVING’ - USA FIELD TRIPS

My trips to Scandinavia had given me a great understanding of the conditions that saw the formation of the first post-war coliving developments, which I have termed ‘1st Gen Coliving’. My final trips were to a country that is arguably the polar opposite to Scandinavia amongst advanced economies, both culturally and economically. This county context may be why the USA is currently leading the charge of the most recent wave of ‘2nd Gen Coliving’, which primarily addresses housing affordability. Scandinavia and the USA rank on opposite ends of many socioeconomic measures tracked by the OECD, such as Gini coefficients, government spending and taxation. However, in terms of coliving, the two regions shared many historical trends; it can even be argued that the USA has a longer track record of coliving if we were to incorporate post war developments into the broader historical context.

PRASANNA KANNAN

“Nuclear family members don't usually buy and sell to each other, are in fact communistic, and we wanted nuclear family intimacy among the communes”

As a country of immigrants, the USA has a long history of boarding houses and cooperatives, often based around specific communities46; as the gateway to America New York City saw the formation of housing cooperatives as early as the 19th Century, with the first recorded cooperative housing community appearing in New York in 1876 with the construction of the Randolph on West Eighteenth Street 47 . Created to provide affordable home ownership, these cooperatives did not focus on communal living in the way that the 1st Gen of Scandinavian developments did in the post war era.

- Kaliflower Commune Newsletter

It was during the 1960s however when Scandinavia and the USA were most aligned in terms of housing innovation. Leading the zeitgeist of the hippie era, San Francisco and Haight-Ashbury in particular became centres of experimentation in communal living. Following on from 1967’s ‘Summer of Love’ a number of communes sprouted in the Bay Area including The Farm, the Kaliflower Commune and the Rainbow Family. However, many of these intentional communities left San Francisco to more rural settings, rarely lasted and often broke down in controversial circumstances48. Unlike Scandinavia, the ebbing of the hippie movement did not lead to dreamers then founding coliving developments in later decades; instead, coliving in the USA did not truly emerge in its modern form until the 1990s. This was thanks mostly to the efforts of two architects, Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett, who like myself visited some of the original Danish bofællesskab with the aim of replicating such homes back in the USA49. This in turn inspired developments such as Muir Commons in Davis, California, which was the first community designed, constructed and occupied specifically as cohousing in 1991. It is only in recent years that coliving has taken hold, in its millennial 2nd Gen form. In fact, the USA is arguably the most developed in terms of this latest iteration of coliving,

National Cooperative Law Center, ‘A History of Housing Cooperatives’, 2017 ibid 48 Carlsson, C. & Elliott, L. ‘Ten Years That Shook the City: San Francisco 1968-1978’, City Lights Books, 2011 49 McCamant, K. & Durrett, C., loc.cit 47

PRASANNA KANNAN

even if it does have its cynics and detractors who see it as the “new having roomates – with an app”50. Much of this cynicism is due to the fact that as described previously, the 2nd Gen is centred almost entirely around housing affordability and is often seen as a side effect of spiralling rental demand in popular urban centres. Due to this the major centres for coliving in the USA are also some of its most unaffordable: namely New York City, San Francisco, and to a lesser extent, Los Angeles. I made two trips to cover these three cities, with my first trip to New York City.

4.5

NEW YORK CITY

It is worth noting that New York City and Manhattan in particular is one of the least affordable places on Earth – especially from a rental perspective. Much of this is due to the space available; Manhattan only covers 22.6 square miles, and this comprises only 2.9% of New York City’s entire surface area51. This leads to incredible disparities in rental prices, and eyewatering sums being paid even for a Londoner like myself – for example, while in February 2019 a 2 bed apartment in trendy Bushwick in Brooklyn rents at an average of $2450, an average 2 bed in more affluent yet trendy NoHo rented at around $13,000 per month52. Those rental fees do not take into account broker fees which are some of the highest in the developed world53. What is perhaps most astonishing of all is that although NoHo’s rent is almost 6 times that of Bushwick, the two areas are only 5.4 miles apart and 30 minutes away by public transport. To give a London comparison, a 2 bed apartment in the most expensive postcode of Belgravia (SW1X) rents on average at around £3900 per month, while up and coming Streatham Hill (SW16) 5.5 miles and 35 minutes away rents on average at £1350 – a 3x multiple vs a 6x multiple in NYC.

Molla, R. ‘“Co-living” is the new “having roommates” — with an app’, Vox, 2019 United States Census Bureau, ‘Census Gazetteer Files: New York County Subdivisions’, 2010 52 RLS IDX Data display by CityRealty.com, LLC 53 The Economist, ‘Sellers beware: Why America’s real-estate brokers are such a rip-off', 2019 51

PRASANNA KANNAN

4.5.1

CASE STUDY: ALTA+ BY OLLIE

My first visit in New York was to ALTA+ by Ollie in Long Island City in Queens. With parts of Brooklyn now as expensive as Manhattan, the borough of Queens is tipped by many to become the ‘next Brooklyn’. Based by a major junction with great transport connectivity (1 min from the subway) and just two stops away from Midtown, ALTA+ typifies Ollie’s core proposition: very conveniently located, affordable coliving with the added perks available from communal facilities.

“Our aim [through coliving] is to offer ‘4 C’s’ – cost saving, comfort, convenience and community”

Ollie’s offering is built around solving housing affordability, particularly for younger professionals working in Manhattan. - Ryan Murphy, With flats starting at $1300, including all bills – half the price of Alta+ by Ollie a conventional studio flat in Queens – Ollie offers huge cost savings at the core of its proposition. Moreover, although such rental values may be possible through conventional flat sharing, Ollie aims to provide a frictionless experience with high spec fit out, shared facilities and services which again help save time and provide a higher quality of living than having flatmates. They label it as their “4 C’s” – that of cost saving, comfort, convenience, community. Customer surveys however indicate that the cost saving element is the biggest draw for Ollie’s residents.

Above: High rise coliving alongside shared facilities, including a fully functioning gym at ALTA+

PRASANNA KANNAN

ALTA+ is located on the lower floors of a 42 storey residential tower constructed by Simon Baron, who are also an investor in Ollie. Ollie has a management agreement in place with no master lease and acts as an operator within a revenue share framework. In terms of zoning, residents are all signed onto 12 month leases with no short term leasing allowed, much like a standard residential tenancy. Ollie’s model aims to provide ‘hotel level amenities’ alongside social benefits to complement the cost savings from coliving. The management team organises in house and outside events through Ollie Social, a membership-based online platform which residents can use to organise and partake in social events. With 3 sites currently live, 2 of which are in Manhattan, the longer term aim is for the platform to facilitate interaction between residents of different sites and non-residents. Mainstream residents of the tower, who make up the vast majority of inhabitants are also able to join in with most of Ollie’s events. In terms of density, while on average a 1 bed apartment would be around 500 sqft in size, the same apartment would be classed as a 2 bed with Ollie’s coliving fit out; from a yield perspective this allows Ollie to generate a $70/sqft/annum rent compared with around $48 for a conventional apartment. Similarly, the 3 bed, 2 bath model flat I was shown around by my host Ryan was the same size as a standard 1 bed 1 bathroom flat. Ollie is able to achieve such densities partly as NYC zoning laws dictate that while an individual apartment has to be more than 400 sqft in size, the number of bedrooms which the apartment is simply a function of there being a window and over >150 sqft of living space available in each bedroom. This arrangement alongside the fact that all bills are included means that almost half of the residents at Ollie were university students; although Ryan was unsure of the breakdown of non-students, she noted that there were a lot of international residents. Most residents came in as singles and not groups, with Ollie utilising an online roommate matching platform called Bedvetter to ensure community cohesion. I was struck by the quality of the fit out and the shared amenities available at ALTA+; it was the highest quality I saw on all of my visits during my Fellowship. From a cost perspective it seemed a no brainer for a young professional who simply didn’t have much time to spend at home, and would greatly appreciate the fact that many household chores were taken care of alongside the communal events on offer. It is worth noting however that as a Londoner I wasn’t really aware of the cultural and social perceptions around residing in Queens, which of course has an impact on rental yields. This was evident in my follow up visits to two sites in Brooklyn, which were comparable or more expensive in price and to me seemed to trade off the fact that they were in PRASANNA KANNAN

trendier locations, as opposed to the actual rental product on offer. Both were also townhouse based coliving developments, a typology that I would continue to see during my trips in California. 4.5.2 CASE STUDY: OUTPOST CLUB

The first of these was the Fayette Street, Brooklyn development of Outpost Club, one of the most successful coliving brands in the USA. Currently live in 28 locations, mostly in New York City, Outpost Club houses tend to have a real international flavour, partly as the founders themselves were Ukrainian entrepreneurs. They launched the business in 2016 as in their own words they understood, “the challenges of moving to new places, working remotely and building a start-up from scratch in a new country”54. With their biggest building comprised of 18 rooms, and houses ranging from 3 to 30 residents, Outpost Club was more centred around the community aspect which they saw a real unique selling product of their brand, particularly as their pricing was generally more expensive than flat sharing in Brooklyn. My host Lauren had often heard from residents that they chose Outpost for the communal experience, and that it set them apart from other coliving offerings. Each unit has a common area on each floor, shared with neighbours while the house has a basement common area accessible by all floors. Starting at $1800 per month, the rent included weekly services such as laundry; located in Williamsburg, this was more expensive than some of their newer developments, which also had an even greater focus on communal areas. Many houses had waitlists, with an average initial stay of 3m, though many residents tend to extend this to 6m. The vast majority of members are 21-35 years old; while they have to be above 18, there was theoretically no upper limit. In practice however a significant number of residents were in creative fields or on internships and waitressing etc to make ends meet. A lot of residents think coliving will be a stepping stone but end up extending their leases. Almost 40% of members were from outside the US and 60% within the US; foreign J-1 visa holders in particular find the coliving option really helpful as they are unsure how to navigate the housing market in a new country.

Outpost Club website, About Us page

PRASANNA KANNAN

Above: Outpost Club’s Fayette Street site in Brooklyn and the shared living area on each floor

With some members there from the very beginning and no investment raised, Outpost Club has expanded from its first house to 28 houses in just 4 years through organic growth. They generally look for properties that are recently renovated or soon to be renovated and that have common areas. They then sign a 3-5y master lease agreement, and then sublet in careful compliance with the strict tenancy regulations in NYC. As coliving is a new concept they are careful to toe the line on regulation, particularly given the pushback in cities like NYC in recent years against platform such as AirBnb and short term lets55. Local single room occupancy laws generally dictate a 30 day minimum stay as well the room size, need for windows etc. Lauren mentioned that houses seem to get characteristics organically, with Fayette Street known as the ‘party house’ with a relatively European and transient feel. This

Weiser, B. & Goodman, J. ‘Judge Blocks New York City Law Aimed at Curbing Airbnb Rentals’, New York Times, 2019 PRASANNA KANNAN

however has unforeseen benefits including a network of Outpost Club members now in Europe who former house members can interact with on their travels. 4.5.3

CASE STUDY: ALEPH

Aleph on Chauncey Street in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn had a similar set up and feel to Outpost Club. Although a newer brand with 7 houses available, they similarly utilised master lease agreements with developers and then sublet to members. Chauncey Street opened in August 2019 with the 1st floor designated as social housing, which was relatively rare for such schemes. My host Ryan lives on site and joined the sales team for the house straight out of university. With a $1300 starting price but a very similar product to Outpost, Chauncey Street showed how critical location was for pricing even with coliving; although just a 10 minute drive down the road from Williamsburg, rental values were a third lower. Residents can sign on for leases from 2-12 months and although the occupants were a real mix, there was a strong focus on young professionals in finance and tech. There was again a strong international presence with relatively few NYC natives; on average residents stayed in one of their properties for around a year. Flats typically had a similar set up to Fayette Street with 80-100 sqft rooms sharing a 300sqft living on each floor, with a communal area for the entire house situated in the basement. Ryan felt that NYC zoning laws allowed a degree of flexibility in favour of coliving. Although I didn’t have a chance to visit one of their developments during my visit, upon my return to the UK I had the chance to speak with Martin Eguiguren at Common, one of the most successful coliving brands in the USA. Common operates a more vertically integrated model with greater involvement in the design phase, with in-house architects working with developers at or just after site acquisition; in terms of leasing they typically work off the massing study, and influence the external configuration based upon the proposed internal floorplans. As to why residents pick Common, Martin felt that the convenience and community aspects of coliving was attractive for young professionals. However Common doesn’t specifically target millennials; given that there 65m people in the US living with roommates who aren’t a relation, there was clearly headroom for the model to grow. 4.5.4 FINDINGS SUMMARY & UK COMPARISON

My first USA trip exposed me to the cutting edge of 2nd Gen coliving, which was even more pronounced in such a densely populated and unaffordable city such as NYC. PRASANNA KANNAN

Gone was the idealistic and experimental nature of the 1st Gen; whereas those pioneers often took years to find like-minded individuals and find suitable sites, the 2nd Gen was a model endorsed by institutional investors and landlords. Moreover, it was housing supply that was meeting strong demand for more affordable product, which meant that companies were able to rapidly scale up their models in short timeframes. This, in turn, led to a greater degree of pragmatism amongst coliving operators compared with the Scandinavian pioneers. They were much more open to experimenting with operational models to achieve financial sustainability, which was never a principal concern in any case for the 1st Gen. They were also catering to a much more fleet-footed and international community, who were often choosing coliving as a way to build networks in a new city while saving on rental costs. I was also struck by the relative ease with which coliving units could be established in the NYC versus the UK, which I was informed was related to the zoning system used in the USA versus our more prescriptive planning approach. However there were strict laws to distinguish coliving developments from short term stays, which had come under fire recently in NYC due to the prevalence of platforms like AirBnB.

4.6

SAN FRANCISCO & LOS ANGELES

It was fitting that my final trip to research 2nd Gen coliving would start at the epicentre of innovation, startups and scale – San Francisco, California. As the gateway to Silicon Valley and the Bay Area, San Francisco is now one of the least affordable places on the planet. With the average 1 bed apartment renting out at $3500 per month56, a young, tech-enabled population and a history of innovation, it is unsurprising that 2nd Gen Coliving is currently exploding in the city, with many of the most widespread operators in the USA having their start in San Francisco. 4.6.1 CASE STUDY: HACKNSLEEP

My first visit was to the appropriately named HacknSleep in Nob Hill. I had the chance to meet with Yaro, founder of the business and coincidentally a Ukrainian who actually

Chen, C. ‘San Francisco Bay Area Metro Report: March 2020’, Zumper.com, 2020

PRASANNA KANNAN

sold some of the business to his compatriots at the Outpost Club, one of the operators I had visited during my NYC trip. Having secured their first site in April 2015, HacknSleep currently operates across 3 sites in San Francisco. As Yaro pointed out, it was very hard for new people who came to SF to find housing and as a part of the startup community he knew a lot of people coming for 3m stints, particularly from Europe, to attend one of the many tech accelerators operating in the Bay Area. He founded HacknSleep to provide a housing solution for such people, with the brand currently operating 52 rooms with 9 more on their way. Rooms have a 30 day minimum stay to abide by SF short stay regulations, thereby avoiding the need for a hotel license. While the average stay was around 3 months, one female resident had stayed at different locations but under the brand since Jan 2016. In terms of pricing HacknSleep rooms are typically comparable to a 1 bed in a flat share, costing around $2000pcm with common areas but with utilities and cleaning included. It also had no long-term commitment, compared to a traditional studio which would cost $3000 pcm and come with a 1 year commitment. Many residents liked the flexibility and the fact that they can move out any time. Although price and flexibility are the main draws, some people really like living in a community and organise parties etc. Almost half the residents were European with the rest from all over the USA. HacknSleep acts solely as an operator and the Nob Hill site was originally a 7 bedroom house which they then converted into 15 bedrooms. Each house tends to have 7 rooms per floor with a common room usually per 5-7 rooms; the house I visited was around 3500 square feet in total area. With SF legislation stipulating that an apartment must be at least 220 square feet and that bedrooms can be as small as 70 square feet57, coliving operators have a lot of flexibility in terms of space standards. I was fortunate to speak with Michelle, a resident, who told me that she first found out about the house through Airbnb and that she wasn’t looking specifically for coliving. Although she labelled herself an introvert, she liked the fact that there was privacy but forced interactions with other house members. Initially hesitant about coliving, which she worried might prove distracting, she actually really liked the community element and anonymity yet closeness of coliving vs traditional flatshare.

Gabbe, C. ‘Looking Through the Lens of Size: Land Use Regulations and Micro- Apartments in San Francisco’, Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 2015 PRASANNA KANNAN

Above: Private room at HacknSleep and 908’s former church and current events space

“I’m an introvert.. and I like that there is privacy but there are also forced interactions” - Michelle, HackNSleep resident

PRASANNA KANNAN

While other residents say that it is an extremely cheap option vs traditional rooms, Michelle actually liked the flexibility and inclusive services over the price itself. She’d made really good friends and also liked the fact that there were many international residents. When asked about ownership, she mentioned that renting was generally seen as preferable for someone in their 20s and 30s in the USA; she herself wouldn’t buy a coliving room as she’s not sure where she’ll end up, which she felt was a common feeling amonst young people generally in the USA. While Michelle would definitely do coliving again, ironically Yaro wouldn’t do coliving himself because of the fact that he now had a young daughter.

4.6.2 CASE STUDY: 908

My next visit as to 908, which was certainly the most intriguing site I visited during all of my trips. Situated in the Russian Hill district, 908 was a coliving scheme owned by an investment vehicle which bought a former church which was repurposed into an events venue with an adjoining building which was turned into coliving apartments. Owned and operated by 908, the 3 storey house currently houses 16 residents in private and shared rooms. Private rooms cost $2300 per month which was comparable to a studio apartment, with shared rooms costing $1500; but included in the rent was free cleaning, linen, simple breakfast, free laundry, all utilities and WiFi. The house had a 1st floor common area, 2 restrooms per floor and residents were mostly foreign and in the tech sector, unsurprisingly for SF. There was a 1 month minimum stay though the average stay was 3 months; my host Gaisar mentioned that around half the people use the communal areas, but equally there was a long waiting list leading to residents being interviewed and vetted carefully. 4.6.3 CASE STUDY: TRIBE LIVING

My last site visit in San Francisco was also the most insightful, partly thanks to my host Stu who was a veteran of both coliving and San Francisco. He currently manages Tribe Living’s SoMa site, but is also a long-term resident who was at the house before Tribe when it was a ‘hacker house’ called Negev. Once a haunt with lots of drugs and parties, Stu has tried to put in some basic amenities and infrastructure over the years to move it from a flophouse into a more structured property. Tribe themselves moved in last year and now have a management agreement in place with the site owners. With 70 residents, this was one of the largest coliving schemes in the Bay Area, and it had evolved over time from a hacker house full of guys to a much more diverse community with a near 50:50 gender split. The community was also split around 50:50 in terms of American and international residents, with many members from India, Europe, Canada and Mexico. Stu himself originally moved in as he came from LA to SF and needed a place to live, simple as that. Interestingly, though he earns less now than he did in LA, he actually saves more as he does not need to spend money on furniture or other expenses which he did when living alone. Many residents who come to the development often need somewhere to live at short notice; although some will have done coliving before, many will not but are open to coliving given the housing market in SF is so difficult, especially if you’re international or not from California. PRASANNA KANNAN

Located in SoMa, adjacent to the financial district where an average apartment rents for $3600 per month, Tribe’s pricing depends on the size of a room and the length of lease, but is in the $1000-2000 range and also includes utilities alongside community elements. Residents on average stay for 6m with prices ranging from $1200-$1500 per month for a shared room depending on the length of the stay; private 20 sqm rooms cost $2000 per month. The residents were roughly half in shared and half in private rooms.

“San Francisco is 7 square miles surrounded by reality” - Stu, Tribe Living site manager

There tended to be 2 types of residents: people who stayed short term due to internships etc and coliving one of the only options available for such a short period of time; while the other group were people who really like living in this way and really enjoyed the community aspect. Stu saw himself as a bit of a homebody and so likes the forced interaction aspect, particularly that you get a lot of ‘micro interactions’ in such a context, instead of formalised socialising in a bar which is forced. The owner of building is part of a family trust and are generally ambivalent to the setup of the building as long as the lease is paid. As Stu explained there was no coliving designation officially in San Francisco and therefore like in the UK in can come in a variety of forms. The building was built in 1912 originally as a residential hotel like many that were built after the San Francisco earthquake. Stu felt that coliving was a function of market dynamics and that it only existed because housing is scarce and prices are high in San Francisco. Although a long term resident himself, he didn’t think people would generally opt into coliving over a traditional model. In his words, although some people do like the communal aspect there was simply “not enough demand to create a market”. Equally, coliving was not particularly lucrative for developers either, and as almost “a weird thing that came around” not of their accord or choosing. He saw Tribe almost like a long-term hostel, with some residents having lived there for 3-4 years. Clearly many of the residents like living with a large diverse group of people, and there were cohorts from past years who still seem to interact with the community even after leaving. However, Stu didn’t feel people would move in if it was the same price as a normal flat, and that often people discover coliving by accident. Clearly his experience contrasted greatly with what I had seen in Scandinavia, though much of it may be due to the deep cultural differences between that region and the USA. As Stu neatly pointed out, “SF is 7 square miles surrounded by reality” and home to a lot of extreme subcultures - what works here to some degree shouldn’t work PRASANNA KANNAN

elsewhere. Moreover, even in SF coliving only took off after many failed attempts, and perhaps could only become commonplace with greater institutional backing. With margins always constrained by the all inclusive nature of coliving, economies of scale and efficiencies were arguably the only way to make it sustainable in the longer term.

Above: The communal area at Tribe Folsom St and PodShare’s hotel/home dorm concept

However in Stu’s view, although coworking “works from a demand side I don’t think for developers it makes sense.” There were also issues around property management that are more pronounced in coliving developments given the hostel like environment residents often find themselves. In some respects, he felt that “the taxonomy of [coliving] is closer to a hotel than a house”, and coliving potentially had an interesting role to play as an intermediate tenure between the two given the fact that if offered much shorter stays than an average rental property. It was interesting to hear such honest and sceptical feedback from a long-term coliving resident, who liked the mode personally but felt it couldn’t become a mainstream tenure without significant societal shifts. In Stu’s view, 2nd Gen coliving as one of many disruptions in housing from Gen Z/Millennials who simply did not have the opportunities that previous generations had in terms of home ownership and tenancy.

PRASANNA KANNAN

4.6.4 CASE STUDY: PODSHARE

The final visit of my fellowship was to PodShare in Los Angeles, who interestingly are fusing the hotel/housing concept as Stu envisaged coliving could. One of the most successful brands in LA, they are aiming to build a global housing network through which “you transfer your stay and not double pay for a home and hotel”. By providing incredible levels of flexibility, such as no minimum or maximum stays, no security deposits or proof of income, PodShare was able to offer housing to freelancers and other self-employed people who would struggle otherwise to find a room in LA. The managers of the Westwood property were kind enough to invite me to a communal dinner where I got to meet a number of residents who worked in varied fields such as the creative through to the construction industries. Situated in one of the most affluent neighbourhoods in LA, and close to UCLA, almost 40% of the development was made up of university students. Very similar to dorm living, PodShare rooms are definitely more affordable particularly once you factor in flexibility, amenities and other savings. The communal dinner and party atmosphere of the evening seemed a fitting end to the series of trips I had made for my fellowship during which I had visited 5 cities across 3 countries over the course of 2 years. Having started off in Denmark, the genesis of modern day coliving, I was finishing off my trip with the new, more youthful typology of its latest iteration. Built around affordability, flexibility and fun, this new iteration of coliving very much catered towards globetrotting millennials with itchy feet. 4.6.5 FINDINGS SUMMARY & UK COMPARISON

My time in California further enforced the lessons I’d learnt during my time in New York City – that 2nd Gen coliving was often in direct contrast with the 1st Gen in terms of its fundamental aims and ambitions. The 2nd Gen was highly international, pragmatic and transient, often without a great foothold in their community. It offered a temporary solution to most of its residents for a very specific point in their lives. The communities also went hand in hand with technological innovation, both in terms of the opportunities that brought them to their host cities, as well as their use within the developments themselves. There were many parallels with these communities to those in the UK, particularly in London, which of course is also very active in the financial and technological sectors. In many ways New York City and San Francisco (and Los Angeles to a lesser extent) were seeing exaggerated versions of many trends currently seen in London for young people in terms of housing affordability and density. PRASANNA KANNAN

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Through my Churchill Fellowship I have been incredibly fortunate to visit two distinct regions – Scandinavia and the USA – that have been at the forefront of different generations of modern coliving. As mentioned previously, Scandinavia pioneered post-war coliving and became an exemplar for other nations through what I have termed “1st Gen Coliving”. On the other hand highly urbanised cities in the USA, in particular New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles, have pioneered what I have termed “2nd Gen Coliving” – a much more pragmatic and contemporary form of coliving built predominantly around affordability, flexibility and technology. These two generations of coliving also neatly mirror two generations of people. While the 1st Gen was formed by dreamers from the baby boomer generation who wished to formalise and legitimise some of the failed housing experiments of the 1960s and 1970s counterculture era, the 2nd Gen is formed by and caters to the Millennial generation, who see coliving much more as a compromise and a necessity. This younger group is not necessarily wedded to coliving’s founding ideals around community and shared resources, and often discover it by accident. Having (like much of the world) missed the 1st Gen pioneered by Scandinavia, the UK has been at the forefront of the 2nd Gen and can be considered closely aligned with the USA in its coliving offering for young professionals today. British developers such as The Collective are making a mark on the global stage and have made the UK the leader in Europe in terms of coliving delivery and supply58. Millenials however make up the majority of coliving beds in the pipeline for the UK and as a nation we are less advanced on intergenerational coliving and later life coliving compared to other parts of Europe, in particular the Netherlands59, though the latter has faced similar challenges to scalability as observed in Scandinavia. It is with this country context in mind that I came to make the following conclusions and recommendations for the UK coliving sector.

Lustigman, R. et al ‘European Coliving Index 2019’, Jones Lang LaSalle, 2019 Arentshorst, M. ‘Intergenerational Housing: The Case of Humanitas Netherlands’, Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 2019

PRASANNA KANNAN

5.1 5.1.1

CONCLUSIONS THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SUPPLY OF COLIVING TO MEET CURRENT DEMAND

What struck me again and again during my travels was how oversubscribed the coliving developments I visited were; this was particularly true of the 1st Gen coliving communities I visited in Scandinavia, which were often managed by the state, and had waiting lists in the decades in some instances. This in turn led to insider/outsider issues with existing residents at times excluding new entrants into developments. This was still true, albeit to a lesser degree, in the 2nd Gen communities I visited in the USA. Although the residents there were more transient in nature and had a different set of motivations to their Scandinavian counterparts, a number of the developments I visited were also oversubscribed and had no rooms available to new members. The UK, as mentioned, is at the forefront of driving the supply of coliving units in Europe; however as outlined by JLL60, although the UK accounts for almost a third of continental supply, in total there are only around 23,150 coliving beds either built or in the development pipeline currently across Europe. In the UK, only 15% of planned supply has been realised to date, one of the lowest of the countries studied. JLL’s report is skewed towards larger developments, and most likely underreports the number of coliving beds available when taking into account smaller and informal coliving communities. Nonetheless, even a simplistic and generous 2x multiple to account for this would imply that in the UK there may currently be around 15,000 coliving beds. This would be supply equating to around 0.02% of the UK’s population. Looking only at current units available this would equate to only 0.003% per capita. Taking only millennials into account this figure would still only be 0.11% per capita. Clearly, even with the planned number of coliving beds coming on stream, there is simply not enough supply to meet demand in the UK, particularly taking into account the current uptake of 2nd Gen coliving. I will not speculate as to how may beds or what beds for capita figure would be appropriate for the UK, and I acknowledge that there may be issues around absorption in the short to medium term. But based on my observations in the countries I’ve visited

Lustigman, R. et al, loc.cit

PRASANNA KANNAN

and the data available, I believe that there is simply not enough supply of coliving units to meet the current demand both in the UK and elsewhere. 5.1.2

COLIVING WILL CONTINUE TO BE A NICHE HOUSING SOLUTION

Conversely, based upon my findings I also believe that coliving will remain a niche housing solution in the short to medium term. This is based particularly upon my observations during my trips to Scandinavia. I was struck by how even in a region with strong cultural norms around communal resources, coliving was nonetheless stigmatised by the population at large. It was also striking how few coliving developments there were in these countries, even though the political and societal conditions needed for their formation were more favourable than elsewhere and had been in place for numerous decades. I was also struck by how many of the residents I had spoken to in the USA had turned to coliving out of desperation, and how they often had negative preconceived notions regarding coliving. However, all of the residents I spoke to during my trips were very positive of their experience with coliving, though a self-selection bias is possible given that I spoke mostly with longer term residents. My conclusion is that the biggest reason coliving is not more prevalent in Scandinavia or elsewhere is cultural. As covered in the introductory section of my report, in the post-war era societies have been conditioned to see the single-family home as the ideal form of housing to aspire to. This has been driven by numerous societal, political and technological factors. A major factor in the UK has of course been the post war housebuilding boom, along with the Thatcherite drive around home ownership as an important stepping-stone towards financial discipline and independence61. This is not just a British phenomenon however; in a Europe wide 2013 survey, a clear majority of 61% (66% for the UK) said that a detached house was their idea of a ‘dream home’. In that same survey, when asked whether their current living situation was their idea of a dream home, only 12% of apartment dwellers agreed while the same figure for detached home dwellers was 66%62. This also ties into my observation of 2nd Gen

61 62

Murie, A. ‘The Right to Buy: History and Prospect’, History & Policy, 2015 Bright, I. et al ‘Homes in Europe: “Dream Home” Hopes and Economic Realities’, Ipsos/ING, 2013

PRASANNA KANNAN

Coliving in the USA, where most residents saw it as appropriate for that phase of their life but not something that was feasible once they had families of their own. As we have seen in recent years with the rise of sharing economy platforms such as Airbnb and Uber, technology can enable rapid change around cultural and societal norms63. This could lead to or accelerate a change in perception around coliving and shared housing in the coming decades. However, given that the move towards single family housing took many decades, and was accelerated by two World Wars, I believe that coliving will continue to be a niche housing solution over the coming decades, even as it meets pent up demand. 5.1.3

COLIVING’S GREATEST POTENTIAL FOR SCALE IS IN SENIOR LIVING

There is one demographic however for whom there is a great and unmet housing need, and for whom communal living is socially accepted due to its mental health benefits – that demographic is of course older people. Although care homes and retirement villages are widely held in the public consciousness, there has been a chronic under provision of housing for older people in the UK64. Combined with an ageing population, increasing rates of dementia and social isolation, I believe that coliving offers huge potential amongst older people. Coliving is associated with young people particularly because of its similarities to the Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) sector. However as I observed during my site visits, much like PBSA, young people generally view coliving as a short term and not a long term housing solution. This is understandable given the point in life which most of them will be at in terms of their careers and families. It also leads to a more transient population within each development and will mean that it is difficult to forge a longer-term sense of community. Coliving for older people on the other hand will cater to people at a later stage of life who may also be looking to downsize from their family home. It may also cater to older people who are downsizing due to the loss of a partner and who may otherwise suffer

63 64

Rowe, P. ‘Beyond Uber and Airbnb’, Social Media + Society, 2017 Phillips, M. ‘The £1 Trillion Reason to Invest in UK Senior Living That Still Isn’t Enough’ Bisnow, 2019

PRASANNA KANNAN

from loneliness. This in turn could have positive benefits for the NHS and social care services and may prolong the time before residents have to move into care homes. I make this assertion based on what I observed in Scandinavia. Many of the dreamers of the 1st Gen have naturally become older coliving residents as they have aged over the decades. It was heartening to see the sense of community I observed in these developments, particularly amongst older female residents who had lost their partners. There are already moves in this direction in the UK, most notably the Older Women’s Cohousing (OWCH) community completed in 2016 in partnership with Hanover Housing Association. It is telling however that much like the Scandinavian dreamers of the 1970s and 1980s, OWCH was initially formed in 1998 and it almost took two decades for the founders’ dreams to be realised. I believe this is just the beginning, and that due to the fundamentals outlined above, coliving for older people offers the greatest potential for scale.

“The ‘cohousing community’ is a subject of mounting interest in Britain. It offers a realistic alternative to a tradition of paternalism and benign neglect to the old and isolated. It involves the older person as a citizen and not a service recipient. It catches the mood of the baby-boomer generation now approaching older age, most of whom have equity not enjoyed by their parents or their children but many of whom have experienced divorce and separation as their parents did not.” - Housing Learning and Improvement Network

5.2

RECOMMENDATIONS

As summarised in my report, the current supply of coliving units does not meet demand either in the UK or elsewhere in Europe. Although I believe that it continue to be a niche housing solution in the short to medium term, I believe that it could potentially have a great impact and scalability amongst older people. Below therefore are some recommendations that can be made from my research for greater proliferation of coliving units in the UK.

PRASANNA KANNAN

5.2.1

GREATER CLARITY ON COLIVING FROM THE PLANNING SYSTEM

There is currently no use class for coliving in the UK within the planning system. Moreover, unlike in Scandinavia where there is a long history of cooperative-based ownership and tenancy structures, or the USA where there is relative flexibility within residential zones, I believe that the planning system is currently an impediment for coliving in the UK. This is evident in the fact that many British coliving developments exploit the sui generis (Latin for ‘of its own kind) planning condition, a condition that amongst other things also covers casinos, nightclubs and scrapyards65. This is in spite of the fact that the UK planning system offers a planning class – use class C4, for Houses in Multiple Occupation – that is relevant to coliving, but unfortunately cannot be applied as it is limited to ‘small shared houses occupied by between three and six unrelated individuals, as their only or main residence, who share basic amenities such as a kitchen or bathroom.’ My first recommendation therefore is for greater clarity within the planning system, either by amending the existing C4 use class to include coliving or to establish it as a new use class altogether. This would help increase the delivery of coliving units in the UK, and the greater clarity within the planning system will also aid the financing of such developments. 5.2.2 GREATER INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH INTO COLIVING AND LATER LIFE

My second recommendation is for greater research from charities, institutional investors and the public sector into the viability of coliving for older people. I believe that this area warrants greater investigation given the substantial social care obligations that we will face as a nation in coming decades. As identified by Age UK, there is a significant lack of research into later living66. This is especially true when it comes to housing for older people, particularly those who do not require social care services. This lack of research means that there is little evidence with which to persuade policymakers of the potential impact that coliving and other innovative housing solutions can have on older people.

65 66

Planning Portal, planningportal.co.uk Age UK, ‘Improving later life. Services for older people – what works’, 2014

PRASANNA KANNAN

OWCH for example is the only notable coliving scheme for older people in the UK, with residents having to lobby various parties for almost 18 years before their High Barnet site came to fruition67. I believe that for further sites to be delivered and for private housebuilders to seriously consider coliving for older people, there needs to more proof of concept sites and more data to prove its durability and viability. I therefore recommend that charities working with older people, institutional investors with a social focus such as Legal & General, and relevant governmental bodies such as Homes England should make greater financing and resources available for research into coliving aimed at older people. Such funding would catalyse innovation in the later living sector and could help build blueprints for success that can be acted upon by developers and investors. It would also provide the intellectual capital and collateral required to lobby policymakers. 5.2.3

GREATER PUBLIC FUNDING TOWARDS COLIVING FOR OLDER PEOPLE

I believe that greater public funding towards coliving would be highly beneficial in the UK, particularly If its positive benefits can be clearly demonstrated through further research. This is especially true for coliving designed for older residents. As summarised in my findings, the 1st Gen of coliving was often driven by dreamers, looking to build intentional communities built around shared spaces. However, in Scandinavia many such groups would not have realised their dreams without the assistance of public bodies who often delivered the schemes. Very few of the developments I visited were delivered without any public assistance. On the other hand 2nd Gen coliving is very much market driven; it offers affordability, convenience and flexibility for its residents who are often international and transient in nature. Such developments are starting to prove their viability, even during market downturns, as exemplified by The Collective who worked with public authorities to house frontline workers during the Covid-19 pandemic on a temporary basis to maintain their occupancy levels68. However, I do not believe that market forces alone can deliver coliving for older people, as many of its potential benefits are market externalities. The core argument

Mairs, J. ‘Pollard Thomas Edwards completes UK's first over 50s co-housing scheme’, Dezeen, 2016 Phillips, M. ‘The Collective’s Reza Merchant On Loneliness, Fear And How Co-Living Fared In The Pandemic’, Bisnow, 2020

PRASANNA KANNAN

in favour of coliving for older people is that it offers health benefits and that by limiting loneliness it can reduce the need for care services69. In the UK the burden of this care provision is taken up predominantly by the state, either through local authorities or through the National Health Service. Private developers therefore are not incentivised to develop coliving for older people, with the 2nd Gen model aimed at millennials far more financially sustainable. At the same time, as seen with OWCH or similar developments, older people who wish to live in coliving developments lack the ability to create such housing stock themselves, even if they have the financial resources to do so. It is worth noting for example that the residents of Hoofddorp, a famed intergenerational community in the Netherlands, required a coalition of the local municipality, housing association and charitable foundations alongside the residential cooperative as well many years to bring one 84 unit development to fruition.

“The demand for these types of housing is incredible. It is a shame that it is so difficult to realise these forms of accommodations... I started all this in 2007… and despite all that, it took more than 10 years to found this. In my experience, project developers usually are not keen to set up these cohousing projects and prefer to concentrate on establishing commercial housing projects” - Glenn Hussain, founder of Hoofddorp Clearly such a coalition-led model, requiring efforts from multiple actors leading to developments with below market returns is not a scalable route for coliving. I believe that this is also the reason that 1st Gen coliving in Scandinavia has stalled, even though it started decades ago, as the political will for such developments has now disappeared. My third recommendation therefore, is that there is public funding available to make the delivery of coliving for older residents more feasible by private developers. If there is conclusive evidence to show that such living would meet unmet demand, that it leads to better outcomes for residents, and that it can act as a preventative measure

PRASANNA KANNAN

to decrease the social care burden on the state, then I believe that it is in the public interest to provide funding to help scale up such a model. This public funding could take the form of catalytic capital from agencies such as Homes England; payment by results mechanisms for developments that are able to demonstrate positive health benefits for residents; or subsidies or other grant funding for such developments so that they offer comparable returns to standard coliving. I strongly believe that without such funding, coliving for older people – if it is shown to be beneficial to society – will not reach the scale needed to have a significant impact within the UK or in other countries. 5.2.4 GREATER NORMALISATION OF COLIVING IN THE PUBLIC CONCIOUSNESS

My final recommendation is also the most difficult to implement, and yet is arguably the most important one of all – to change the public perception of coliving. As I reported in my conclusions, I believe that coliving will remain a niche solution as long as it is seen in a negative light in comparison to single family housing. The only way therefore for coliving to truly emerge into the mainstream is for it to be seen as an aspirational and attractive housing tenure for all. I believe that the Built to Rent (BTR) sector offer some lessons as to how this might be a possible. Through a combination of convening organisations, institutional investor buy-in and state support, BTR has gone from a niche offering to one of the fastest growing sectors in the UK housing market. Although in some respects this is catch up growth when considering the prevalence of BTR in Europe and the USA, I believe that its success can be informative as to how coliving can be normalised in the UK. I will conclude my report by recommending that the coliving sector as a whole make greater efforts to collaborate and to educate the public at large as to the benefits and possibilities offered by coliving. As a nascent housing tenure, I believe that there is significant scope for associations, networks and trade bodies promoting coliving. This is particularly important given the number of coliving residents I met during my travels who weren’t aware that the tenure existed, even in Scandinavian countries. This cultural shift will be a crucial lever, alongside greater clarity on planning, improved research and increased public funding to help elevate coliving from an esoteric housing tenure back into the mainstream. After all, coliving is both new and yet as old as civilisation itself.

PRASANNA KANNAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Age UK, ‘Improving later life. Services for older people – what works’, 2014 Andrén, A. ‘State and Towns in the Middle Ages: The Scandinavian Experience’, Theory and Society, 1989 Bengtsson, B. ‘Allemansrätten – Vad säger lagen?’, Naturvårdsverket, 2004 Boys Smith, N. ‘Co-Living and the Common Good, RSA Action & Research Centre, 2018 Bright, I. et al ‘Homes in Europe: “Dream Home” Hopes and Economic Realities’, Ipsos/ING, 2013 Burke, D. ‘The Lawn Road Flats: Spies, Writers and Artists’, Boydell & Brewer, 2014 Busck, S. & Poulsen, P. ‘Danmarks historie - i grundtræk’, Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2002 Calmfors, L. et al. ‘Integrating immigrants into the Nordic labour markets’, Nordregio, 2019 Campbell, C. ‘Places of Many Generations’, Genealogy of Religion: Explorations in Evolution, Anthropology and History, 2015 Carlsson, C. & Elliott, L. ‘Ten Years That Shook the City: San Francisco 1968-1978’, City Lights Books, 2011 Chen, C. ‘San Francisco Bay Area Metro Report: March 2020’, Zumper.com, 2020 Coates, C. ‘Searching for the first hippie commune’, Communities Britannica, 2013 Davis, J. ‘Rents and Race in 1960s London: New Light on Rachmanism’, Twentieth Century British History, 2001 Gabbe, C. ‘Looking Through the Lens of Size: Land Use Regulations and MicroApartments in San Francisco’, Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 2015 Hames, B. & Raymond, J. ‘Culture Summary: Yanomami’, New Haven, 1995 Hanley, L. ‘Estates : an intimate history’, Granta, 2012 Hughes, D. ‘A Brief History of the Magna Carta’, House of Lords Library, 2015 Isabella, J. ‘The Caveman’s Home Was Not a Cave’, Nautilus, 2013 PRASANNA KANNAN

Jakobsen, P. & Larsen, H. ‘An alternative for whom? The evolution and socioeconomy of Danish cohousing’, Urban Research & Practice, 2019 John G. ‘A World of Their Own Making: Myth, Ritual, and the Quest for Family Values’, Harvard University Press, 1997 Johnston, P. ‘Coliving – a Millennial utopia or another sharing economy cash grab?’, The Fifth Estate, 2019 Knipe, E. et al ‘Families and households in the UK’, Office for National Statistics, 2014 Larsen, H. ‘Three phases of Danish cohousing : tenure and the development of an alternative housing form’, Housing Studies, 2019 Lee, S. ‘The Commune Movement during the 1960s and the 1970s in Britain, Denmark and the United States’, The University of Leeds, 2016 Leigh Hester, J. ‘A Brief History of Co-Living Spaces’, Citylab, 2016 Lustigman, R. et al ‘European Coliving Index 2019’, Jones Lang LaSalle, 2019 Mairs, J. ‘Pollard Thomas Edwards completes UK's first over 50s co-housing scheme’, Dezeen, 2016 Marsland, J. ‘Squatting: The Fight for Decent Shelter, 1970s–1980s’, Britain and the World, 2018 McCamant, K. & Durrett, C. ‘Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves’, Ten Speed Press, 1994 McIntosh, C. ‘Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary’, Cambridge University Press, 2013 Milman, D. ‘Where it all began: cohousing in Denmark’, The Co-Housing Company, 1994 Molla, R. ‘“Co-living” is the new “having roommates” — with an app’, Vox, 2019 Moore, J. ‘The Prehistory of Home’, University of California Press, 2012 Murie, A. ‘The Right to Buy: History and Prospect’, History & Policy, 2015 National Cooperative Law Center, ‘A History of Housing Cooperatives’, 2017 Naveed, M. ‘Harappa: An Overview of Harappan Architecture and Town Planning’, Ancient History Encyclopedia, 2014

PRASANNA KANNAN

Nayla Fuster, Rowan Arundel & Joaquin Susino (2019) From a culture of homeownership to generation rent: housing discourses of young adults in Spain, Journal of Youth Studies, 2019 Ortiz-Ospina, E. ‘The rise of living alone : how one-person households are becoming increasingly common around the world’, Our World in Data, 2019 Parker, R. ‘Funding affordable housing’, Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2008 Phillips, M. ‘The £1 Trillion Reason to Invest in UK Senior Living That Still Isn’t Enough’ Bisnow, 2019 Phillips, M. ‘The Collective’s Reza Merchant On Loneliness, Fear And How Co-Living Fared In The Pandemic’, Bisnow, 2020 Quinio, V. & Burgess, G. ‘Is co-living a housing solution for vulnerable older people?’, Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research, 2019 Richter, D., et al ‘The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the origins of the Middle Stone Age’, Nature, 2017 RLS IDX Data display by CityRealty.com, LLC Ronald, R. & Doling, J. ‘The Changing Shape of the East Asian Housing Model’, Housing East Asia, 2014 Rowe, P. ‘Beyond Uber and Airbnb: The Social Economy of Collaborative Consumption’, Social Media + Society, 2017 Rubenstein, D. & Kealey, J. ‘Cooperation, Conflict, and the Evolution of Complex Animal Societies’, Nature Education Knowledge, 2010 Rule, F. ‘The Worst Street in London’, Ian Allan Publishing, 2008 Souza, E. ‘What is Co-Living?’, ArchDaily, 2019 Statista Research, ‘Age distribution of home owners in England (UK) in 2018/2019, Statista, 2020 Sugihara, K. ‘Multiple Paths to Industrialization: A Global Context of the Rise of Emerging States’, EESIPS, 2019 The Economist, ‘Sellers beware: Why America’s real-estate brokers are such a ripoff’, 2019 United States Census Bureau, ‘Census Gazetteer Files: New York County Subdivisions’, 2010

PRASANNA KANNAN

Vestbro, D. & Horelli, L. ‘Design for gender equality - the history of cohousing ideas and realities’, Built Environment, 2012 Weiser, B. & Goodman, J. ‘Judge Blocks New York City Law Aimed at Curbing Airbnb Rentals’, New York Times, 2019

PRASANNA KANNAN