Prologue Movements start with ‘crazy’ people standing on the fringes alone. They might be the lone dancer spinning wildly in bliss alone on the dancefloor, or they may be someone craving community and taking action. This is that story. As far as we can see, the co-living movement began with a disperate tribe of visionaries picking up on similar impulses around the globe. They might have identified a craving for community and connection, or a lack of quality affordable housing for their peer group, or possibly a desire for more flexible housing solutions that met their changing lifestyles that valued mobility, flexibility, experience and access over ownership. Over the past years, various manifestations of this modern form of communal living has received increasing attention by popular media; dubbing the trend co-living. Like many other movements, in the early days it’s hard to define what it looks like; although it’s clear ‘something is happening’. When co-working emerged as a thing over a decade ago, people could not wrap their head around it. They would attempt to associate it with other forms of shared office space, although it was clear to those on the inside that this was something very different. Here we are a decade later and there's no need to define co-working, as we have numerous examples to point to; although they all look quite different. The same will be the case when we look back at coliving in a decade from now. For now, it’s important to focus on the drivers rather than the definitions. Thanks to the boom in real estate as commoditized and tradable asset class in the past decades, it’s become increasingly difficult to easily access affordable quality housing. As technology increasingly dominates our attention, we find loneliness and anxiety statistics in society spiking at catastrophic rates. Relatedly, our lifestyles afford us more flexibility in how we desire to live and work. We increasingly favor convenience, experience, flexibility and access over ownership, status and security. As a tapped in tribe of visionary creatives and entrepreneurs pick up on these trends, they continue to develop solutions that meet these changing needs and desires. The manifestations of co-living are broad, yet they all seem to embody a modern spin on an age-old construct of communal living which embeds a layer of service. From an anthropological perspective, it’s interesting to identify that many of the intentional communities of the past increasingly collapse as they no longer meet the changing needs of societal norms in our rapidly changing world. Pure House Lab was conceived to support the emergence of this renewed template for communal living. Our intention is to function as a federation, network and do-tank for the coliving sector and focus our work in three categories (think, connect and create). Our work is distilled through six lenses (community, space, design, model, policy and communications). We support our members by conducting (1) research and prototypes, (2) hosting events, conferences and workshops and (3) leveraging our network to offer consultancy services.
In this publication, we will share an overview of the state of the market through our six lenses and based upon member feedback. We hope you find this resource useful and enjoy the read. The present and future of co-living typologies and business models Co-living: an emerging sector with a strong potential for opportunity The co-living sector has been expanding all over the world over the past few years, with large parts of the market opening up in locations such as the United States, Western Europe and Asia. This rise in the sector has led to a diversification of business models and offerings, depending on factors such as location, size of investments, the scale of urban densification in that city, and a range of different operational schemes. Co-living initiatives are at the moment quite diverse in their offers, however, are accessible mainly to a population of individuals who remain in a certain age range and socioeconomic background (the sector has long been tagged with a millennial freelancer / digital nomad profile), leaving a lot of room for opportunity and innovative types of co-living spaces. Aside from property development and operational co-living schemes, there are other opportunities to capitalize on the co-living phenomenon, such as through online marketplaces, innovation platforms, research labs and developing services and applications that can be layered onto already existing co-living offers. These research initiatives and marketplaces are emerging from well established companies like BMW and IKEA (with BMW’s MINI Living and Ikea’s Space10 future-living lab and it’s One Shared House 2030 research project), but also from more independent startups such as Coliving.com, Startupbnb and CODINO. Shared living models: where does co-living come from? Before identifying different co-living business models, it is important to differentiate and compare co-living to one of it’s predecessors, co-housing (which is the most comparable model of predecessors amongst other similar models such as student and senior housing). Co-housing has existed in Scandinavian countries since the 1970s/1980s, and can be defined as urban / semi-urban communal living where responsibilities (such as designing the development, financial management, carpooling, child care) and communal activities (such as communal meals, film clubs, permaculture gardening) are shared and where residents intentionally seek out living in community and sharing resources. These are sometimes referred to as intentional communities, and “are neighbourhood developments where private and common facilities are combined in response to the social and the practical needs of contemporary urban citizens”1. Similar to co-housing, other shared-living models (such as eco-villages and housing cooperatives) exist where one can also find similar characteristics to co-living spaces. When referring to co-living, however, this more recent model is usually operated by a third party service provider who manages collective activities and responsibilities as a company, with a degree of community input that goes into decision making
1Lietaert, M. (2010). Cohousings relevance to degrowth theories. Journal of Cleaner Production,18(6), 576-580.
and organization of communal activities. In regards to these third party service providers, there are a wide range of third parties adapting innovative models of shared living. Identifying co-living typologies: the different actors developing co-living initiatives There are many different ways to categorize co-living typologies and the co-living sector is becoming increasingly attractive to actors on all scales of urban development, the sharing economy, hospitality and the real estate sector. According to Ikea’s Space10, “this form of ‘living together’ is changing the way we approach housing, and it comes in different forms. It can range from a home for two people to a complex of a few hundred, like the Collective Old Oak in London”. One way to differentiate co-living spaces is their use and the amount of time they are being used: are they more destinational spaces where flexible and nomadic young professionals are able to stay in for short-term periods, or are they rather more residential in nature and cater to a diversity of modern urbanites who seek medium to long term stays? The main differences between ‘residential’ and ‘destinational’ co-living spaces are the length of stays (very short term versus short-medium term) and location (usually rural versus urban). Another way to identifying co-living spaces is by the third parties developing and operating these spaces. Fabrice Simondi, President of PUREHOUSE LAB and it’s Business Research Forum Coordinator, identifies several prominent actors getting involved in the co-living sector: ●
●
●
Private entrepreneurs: individuals who buy or rent a property and subsequently operate a co-living initiative in the space, doing so themselves and/or with a small team of community managers and an operational / marketing staff. These individuals are in charge of onboarding, operations, marketing and making sure rent, taxes and charges are paid to the property owner. These spaces are usually created with shared values / interests in mind and with of sharing resources and experiences with a vibrant community of like-minded individuals. Some examples include Tech Farm (Stockholm, Sweden), Sun and Co (Javea, Spain), and Outpost Club (New York, USA). Sharing economy innovators: startups that have grown to develop co-living spaces after their initial businesses have gained momentum and have received sufficient investing. Some examples include the co-working startup WeWork’s WeLive and HubHaus, which provides communal living spaces in multi-million dollar houses outside of Silicon Valley. Hospitality operators: large hospitality companies like Accor Hotels and Ascott are creating hybrid hotel/hosel/co-living brands with communal living elements in their spaces, some even creating separate brands geared towards flexible and location independent lifestyles. These brands resemble the co-living housing model in terms of morphology of space, interior design, the services they offer and the flexible duration of the stays. This also allows these hotel operators to reduce maintenance costs (i.e. less cleaning services), have less turnover and reach higher rates of occupancy. Some examples include Jo&Joe (Hossegor, France), lyf (China and Singapore) and Zoku (Amsterdam, Netherlands).
●
●
Real estate developers: real estate property developers are interested in the co-living sector and realize the potential for these spaces to become a significant model in the housing market. Although they are not necessarily familiar with the operational side of co-living spaces (compared to hotel operators who are adopting the concept and have more familiarity with these kinds of services), they are investing in projects that include co-living concepts in their new developments. Some examples include BNP Paribas Immobilier (Paris, France), Capital Land (South East Asia) and Property Markets Group (Chicago). Purpose-based communities: values driven communities that put a strong emphasis on having shared values around contributing a positive social impact to their neighborhoods and beyond. These communities are dedicated to identifying the best tools for collaboration (such as Enspiral), applying alternative financial and governance structures to their spaces (such as Embassy Network in California) and encouraging social change by showing supporting and acknowledging current or previous change makers in their community that have created positive impact initiatives through interactions made at their spaces (such as co.space in Pennsylvania and DreamHouse in Atlanta).
You could mention Enspiral, dedicated to build strong tools to collabatove projects, or The Cô Space, dedicated to socials impact projects.
Regardless of who is developing the co-living project, there are also some nuances as to who owns the property and who operates the services in the space. Some co-living spaces are owned and operated by separate companies who form partnerships, while others may share a complex with several other tenants such as grocery stores or gyms. For example, Ollie’s new project in South End, Boston, will be in partnership with National Development and their complex will be shared with a Whole Foods and a Marriott-branded hotel. Most co-living projects operate and own the space on their own, but may receive financial support from external investors. Whether the service is coming from a startup or a property developer, the affordability of the existing co-living offers is still a sensitive subject surrounding this sector. While most co-living spaces tout affordable and flexible offers, they tend to cost a few hundred dollars over traditional market prices. Fabrice Simondi of PUREHOUSE LAB strongly believes innovations in the coliving sector will come in the form of less exclusive co-living models that are more affordable and accessible to wider populations. During the interviews for this publication, Simondi spoke about social housing co-living models that are intergenerational, consider the needs of individuals with mental and physical disabilities and will be included in a uniform package for workers when being hired at new jobs. Irene Pereyra from New York design studio Anton and Irene (who have partnered with Space10 on One Shared House 2030), gave us some insights into a similar vision for the future of co-living:
“If co-living becomes more inclusive of different demographics and socio-economic backgrounds, then people will be able to live with each other despite of their differences. They might even be able to better understand each other, and respect their differences. In an age where we are becoming more and more siloed thanks to the social media bubbles we have created for ourselves, we are losing our connection to people from different walks of life, and we are losing our empathy for other perspectives. If inclusionary co-living becomes the new normal it will not only have a positive impact within a local neighborhood, it will have a positive impact for mankind as a whole.� With the help of new technological innovations such as 3D printed buildings and more flexible zoning regulations and real estate prices, shared living spaces have a huge potential to become more accessible to wider publics, making them authentic leaders in sustainability and social impact. While some models focus more on creating connections between social entrepreneurs and startup founders during workations/work retreats in destinational locations along the coast of Spain or Indonesia, residential co-living spaces in urban environments can transition into a more values-based concept that offers affordable living options and develops genuine connections with local community groups, citymakers and planning authorities to foster positive change within their neighborhoods and cities.
The role of technology in the co-living movement Technology in the co-living sector; a double-edged sword The role technology plays in the co-living sector is interesting because it is somewhat of a double-edged sword: part of why the co-living phenomenon is growing so fast is because individuals in dense urban environments feel lonelier than ever (40% of Americans report feeling lonely and loneliness is now being considered a growing health epidemic) , receding to social media and online television series for their sense of belonging and connection. On the other hand, technology has the potential to strengthen the co-living experience through services, tools and apps that facilitate many elements of co-living including communication, onboarding, sustainability, bookings, rental payments and so much more. Technology in this sense is adding value to the co-living experience by facilitating a holistic lifestyle that integrates all aspects of people’s lives through these different services and tools. Guillaume De Jenlis, the Services Research Forum Coordinator of PUREHOUSE LAB, identifies two main uses of technology in co-living spaces: ●
“Finding the best suited co-living spaces: A couple websites are referencing co-living spaces and coliving.com has done a great job to help you find and book a space. If you are traveling to a new city and want to meet people or you are in need of an accommodation for a couple months, you will find a space where you can find people like you.
●
Co-living management: Book a space, send and collect billing, chat with neighbors, share a bike (or a car) with your community, create events, etc... I believe all co-living spaces will need to rely on technology to manage their day to day logistics and bring communication inside their communities”.
As noted, some of the ways in which co-living spaces are using technology is focused on onboarding and marketing, for example some spaces use 360 virtual reality tours (such as Common’s 3D Showcase tours). 5Lmeet in Beijing has a similar 360 virtual reality tour, but also has an in-house app called Joyrun, that guests use to book co-working desks, enter their individual apartments, access communal areas and the kitchens. As a well connected building
with many IOT technologies, 5Lmeet also uses facial recognition systems to allow guests to enter their rooms. Messaging apps such as WhatsApp and private Facebook groups are also very commonly used for group communication amongst residents of different co-living spaces. These are used to organize events, outings, share rides, food and ideas, express complaints and concerns and as general means of communication between residents. One our members Al Jeffrey, who is the founder of Base Commons in Melbourne, says that co-living spaces need to be “Making sure there is a platform (digital or otherwise) that is the 'interactive connective tissue' of the community and allows members to self-organise”. However, the use of too many apps or websites for communicating may end up being overwhelming and confuse residents as to where the most important information is being posted, so most co-living operators go with what is usually being used by members already, which is usually WhatsApp, Slack and Facebook. Developing apps and technologies specifically for co-living spaces Alongside existing apps and technologies, there is also a potential for developing in-house apps similar to 5Lmeet’s Joyrun. However, our Services Research Forum Coordinator argues that there is also a strong case for developing white label apps over in-house apps: I think there is a much bigger potential with white labels apps. If you look at the co-working industry, most spaces are building apps based on a framework. It helps reduce the development cost and build new features faster as costs are shared with other spaces using the app. You are still able to customize your app layout and the features you want to use. With PUREHOUSE LAB members, Guillaume is working on developing a white labeled app so that co-living spaces can have the right tools to manage your community; this white label app could potentially help spaces with marketing (publish your spaces, qualify tenants, book appointments), space management (rent collection, group messaging, maintenance service requests) and community management (tenant portal, events, neighborhood interaction). The idea is that co-living spaces could customize this app according to size of their community and their branding techniques. The potential of open source technologies and decentralized platforms for co-living management Open source technologies such as GitHub have a huge potential for sharing best practices and insights amongst co-living spaces around the world. For Example, EdgeRyders - a group of entrepreneurs and innovators who work with the UNDP and the Council of Europe to research new technologies and millennial culture - have a large GitHub network that emerged after their unMonastery collaborative shared living experience in Matera, Italy ended. According to their unMonastery GitHub website, they use this technology for knowledge sharing and organizational management: “As decentralised membership steered organisation, we needed a criteria for inclusion. We settled upon a membership ‘fee’ of 100 hours of unpaid unMonastery labour as the marker for
meaningful commitment, and─we sent out an invite to all those that had contributed this level of time to the initiative up until then. Now, finally back on track, this organisational document should outline how we anticipate the organisational structure will work in practice as both a membership base, organisation forum and commitment management account.” In regards to co-living management, tools like GitHub can be used to measure, track commitment and contributions, as a way to organize holocractic governance and to share and develop new ideas and practices. Other disruptive technologies such as the Blockchain also have an enormous potential to be integrated into the co-living sector through multiple angles, such as through rental payments, insurance provisions, medical assistance and group voting techniques. According to a sharing platform called the Coliving Club, blockchain technology also has the potential to disrupt the real estate sector, facilitating the development of shared living spaces: “Some of the issues in buying and selling real estate are bureaucracy, lack of transparency, fraud, and mistakes in public records. Using blockchain technology can speed up transactions by reducing the need for paper-based record keeping. It can also help with tracking, verifying ownership, ensuring accuracy of documents, and transferring property deeds”. For example, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) blockchain platforms such as Ubitquity help increase transparency in real estate deals by inputting property information and record documents directly onto the blockchain with secure recording and tracking methods. At the moment the use of these decentralized platforms is ripe with potential, and these technologies can catalyze the co-living movement into a leading sector in real estate, tech and social entrepreneurship. The co-living sector can be grateful for these technological innovations; in a way technology has facilitated the emergence of the sector by creating a need for physical interaction and connection and at the same time the potential for integrating IOT and decentralized technologies into co-living spaces and management is strong. PUREHOUSE LAB is working to connect thought leaders in these different sectors to one another in order to develop these technologies for the co-living sector, and we are aiming to facilitate the creation of disruptive platforms for governance, finance, management and communication for shared living spaces.
How urban planning and public policy impact the development of the co-living sector Urban planning and co-living: friend or foe? Since co-living is still a relatively new sector, figuring out how to develop co-living spaces is still quite the challenge. Is it easier in terms of planning regulations and costs to develop purposebuilt ground-up sites such as Ollie’s future Long Island City project, or is it easier to reconvert old hotels or manors into a rural collaborative space like Coconat outside of Berlin? Either way, the development of co-living spaces is dependent on the zoning regulations and public policies of specific cities and countries, and the value of the real estate market in those areas as well. This can make developing co-living spaces complicated, since the model is often a mix between residential (private studios), commercial (paid services and spaces such as co-working hot desks and events rooms available to purchase from people outside of the co-living space) and sometimes even manufacturing (with the addition of a makerspace into the co-living space, for example). These hybrid spaces don’t fit into traditional zoning regulations and it makes it hard for co-living initiatives to approve their spaces for construction and/or operations. Ana Paula Emidio, PUREHOUSE LAB’s Policy Research Forum Coordinator, argues that: “In terms of policy, the biggest planning limitations to co-living spaces can be found in the zoning regulations of cities… the co-living concept still does not exactly fit into conventional zoning rules, making it even more challenging to find a common ground of where and how ordinances can be applied to this context.” One example of planning limitations for the development of co-living spaces are Single Room Occupancies (SROs) that force residents renting an apartment with an individual bedroom and shared kitchens and/or bathrooms to co-sign a single lease for the entire unit. A law in New York City in the 1950s prohibited the creation of new SROs and states that no more than three unrelated people can live in the same household at the same time. Since co-living spaces usually have over a dozen unrelated individuals staying in a private room and using shared kitchens and bathrooms, co-living spaces like Common have already had troubles with staying in line with New York City’s Department of Buildings’ Building Code and Housing Maintenance Code. These kinds of limitations do not occur only in New York City, and it is one of the reasons why the co-living sector in cities like Paris is taking a while to develop. Some policy innovations exist, and what the sector needs is more flexibility and ingenuity that allows for hybrid spaces to thrive without the constraints of strict, decades-old housing codes and zoning regulations. Innovative development approaches to co-living: a multidisciplinary effort
In order to achieve more flexibility in the development of co-living spaces it will require more communication and collaboration between co-living operators, public authorities and real estate developers. An increase of dialogue between these actors about the value co-living spaces can add to their urban ecosystems and the fabric of local neighborhoods is needed in order for planning authorities and real estate developers to become more familiar with the concept. Jonathan Imme, founder of The Arrivers in Berlin, emphasizes this point in a recent article for Ouishare about the capacity for shared living concepts to ‘make cities great again’: “So we need to push for cities to start considering the positive effects that co-living and cohousing can bring. It shouldn’t be about the money but regarded as projects that move the city forward, truly promote diversity and foster stronger social links... Our policies need to incentivise real estate developers to create housing concepts and frameworks that foster more people sharing spaces, for instance where not everyone has their own guest room that only gets used twice a month. So if cities make it more attractive for real-estate owners to develop coliving and cohousing concepts it could really be a game changer.” In addition to a lack of understanding surrounding the economic, social and cultural capital of these hybrid spaces, Imme goes on to talk about the difficulty of finding affordable and available land and the issues that come with needing to refurbish existing apartment stocks to accommodate the needs of shared living spaces. Our Policy Research Forum Coordinator Ana Paula Emidio makes similar arguments when discussing the planning limitations for developing co-living spaces, and calls for the need for housing policies to go beyond the single-family / multi-family binary that is currently all too familiar in cities around the world. Ana Paula also argues for the importance of flexibility around allowing unrelated individuals to share units, promoting high density micro-units, having adjustable rental agreements and requirements and incorporating sustainable practices and design implementations into co-living spaces, which would ultimately allow for potential tax exemptions for co-living operators and developers. Implementing more sustainable practices into the values and infrastructure of co-living initiatives can also be a way to create more harmony in the discussions between operators and planning authorities. Joining forces with traditional developers and planning authorities During an interview with Jonathan Imme in the OuiShare article Coliving on the Rise: Can House-Sharing Make Cities Great Again?, Imme argues that: “We need to join forces to convince City Councils and real estate developers that coliving is the future. It is both financially interesting and makes the city more connected, increasing diversity and helping cross-finance people who can’t afford to live in cities anymore.” This stance emphasizes the argument in the previous section, and there have been a few examples of collaborations between traditional real estate developers, planning authorities and co-living operators that have proven to be successful. For example, Ollie has been partnering with multiple developers such as National Development in South End Boston and
Simon Baron Development and Quadrum Global in Long Island City to develop ground-up sites that will be co-operated and co-owned between the partners. As of late November 2017, however, Ollie’s project with National Development in South End Boston still requires Boston Planning and Development Agency approval, reiterating the need for more multidisciplinary partnerships and conversations. In another case of successful dialogue between co-living operators and planning authorities, Mokrin House in rural Serbia just recently received an award from the local municipality in which the space is located, the City of Kikinda, for promoting modern and alternative living in rural surroundings. This award, the “Captain Misa Anastasijevic”, places them in a position to receive a similar award on the national level, along with prominent entreprises, brands, economists and institutions from around Serbia. Coconat recently won a similar prize from the State of Brandenburg in Germany, as the ‘Demographics Example of the Month’. In more urban environments, an innovative zoning code recently adopted by commercialresidential ‘e-lofts’ in Alexandria, Virginia, falls under a commercial residential mixed use highdensity (CRMU-H) zoning, a dual-use concept that allows “businesses to write-off up to 49.9 percent of their home office space if located in their apartment unit”. This means that individuals and/or companies can either rent an apartment, rent office space or do both with any of the 200 units in the e-loft complex. When asked about innovative housing regulations, PUREHOUSE LAB’s Policy Research Forum Coordinator, Ana Paula Emidio also refers to the Santa Cruz’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Development program, which allows for the addition of separate units to pre-existing homes, which include a “separate kitchen, sleeping, and bathroom facilities, attached or detached from the primary residential unit on a single-family lot”. These ADU’s are an opportunity to increase the amount of affordable rental housing, provide homeowners with a chance to supplement mortgage payments and offer new conditions for shared living and small-scale neighborhood compatible housing. The importance for dialogue between multiple actors in regards to the development of co-living spaces is becoming more and more clear, and there is potential for the values and objectives of co-living operators to clearly align with the visions of city planners and authorities. In order for the co-living sector to remain pertinent, it must make strides towards more sustainable and affordable practices, which will in turn make them more visible in the eyes of local municipalities and planners. Co-living operators need to put a genuine emphasis on affordability by partnering with city councils, policymakers and national housing programs, whom could help by providing funding for co-living spaces to become housing schemes that also provide social housing options, for example. Co-living operators now have the choice whether or not they want to become agents of gentrification that only seek profitable returns, or whether or not they have a genuine community and social purpose that aligns with other citymaking actors that strive towards sustainable and positive resilience and change.
Designing for shared living and community experience The social and physical architecture of co-living spaces Architects and designers are reflecting more and more about how the structures, spaces and products they design react within their built environment, and it is no exception with shared living spaces. Beyond physical functionality and appealing aesthetics, co-living spaces are using design techniques that encourage social interaction, collaboration and connection, and some recent trends such as micro-units and modular design are being integrated into these spaces to redefine the notions of private and public space. The way co-living spaces design the built environment for residents has the potential to increase productivity and creativity, foster spontaneous encounters and improve the overall well-being of its inhabitants. When asking the team at Ikea’s future living lab Space10 how they thought design can improve the shared living experience, project lead Jamiee Williams responded by saying the following: “architecture plays the essential role in facilitating not only the meeting between residents but also the activation and behavioural roles that the residents take on. A well designed, inspiring and quality driven space is proven to encourage better behaviour whereby residents are more considerate and committed to the wellbeing of their surroundings and the people they share it with”. PUREHOUSE LAB’s Space Research Forum Coordinator, George Green, expresses similar reflexions in his master's dissertation, The Logistics of Harmonious Co-living. Exploring contemporary co-living through design interventions. Green’s dissertation analyses the design of several co-living spaces in London (including The Collective and Roam) through Living Lab workshops he conducted with residents of these spaces. Through these Living Labs and according to additional research, Green found that “design for diverse use, creation of opportunity for informal meetings, and integration of environmental heritage” were critical elements of shared living design and that it ultimately “increases interpersonal bonds and individual and collective well-being”.2 Different techniques can be used to create these interpersonal connections including the arrangement and function of the furniture and artefacts used, the spacing of the rooms and different room types depending on the need for privacy or ideation and collaboration.
2Easterbrook, M. & Vignoles, V. (2015). When friendship formation goes down the toilet: Design features of shared accommodation influence interpersonal bonds and well-being. British Journal of Social Psychology. 54 (1), p125-139.
Reimagining shared living through innovative architecture and design Designing spaces that value face-to-face interaction is something that can also be seen in innovation and collaboration spaces such as makerspaces and co-working spaces, and the “changing nature of innovation is transforming spaces into open, flexible locales where separate professions and disciplines more easily converge”. The same can be said with shared living spaces, except that these spaces encourage convergence not only between individuals with different professions and disciplines, but also backgrounds, cultures, lifestyles and worldviews. There are a few innovative design approaches and experiments to shared living that are worth highlighting, due to their efforts in the use of ecological and upcycled materials, their ability to balance private and public space through modular design and integrating new residents through interactive design. One such example is Barcelona-based architecture studio MIEL Arquitecturos’ Piso Salva 46, a multipurpose shared micro living space that values ecology, restoration and up-cycling (with the recovery and replacement of the original hydraulic mosaic tiles). For the architects, Elodie Grammont & and Miguel Angel Borràs, this space is a “play of opposites in a world of conformists”; they claim that the balance of privacy and common space Piso Salva 46 allows for a “flexible co-existence”. Another example of an emphasis of a balance between privacy and common space was MINI Living’s ‘Do Disturb’ installation at the Salone Mobile Milano 2016, which “provides its occupants with all the security of inhabiting the space within their own four walls, but as the partitions are flexible, the installation blurs the normal boundaries between the private and the communal”. In his master’s dissertation about designing spaces for harmonious shared living, George Green refers to a housing experiment by Hungarian architecture firm BatLab, called ‘3in1’, which uses vibrant colours to add distinctions between zones within the space, showing the “value of transparent engagement opportunities and considered methods of integrating and familiarising new residents”. Green also argues how physical artefacts such as modular shelving systems can shape human action and “modify our actions and experiences, challenge pre-conceptions, and generate new knowledge”. An example of an urban co-living operator who focuses on livability design - architecture that encourages social connection as well as recuperative communing with nature - is Cohabs. Cohabs is a co-living network in Brussels whose spaces are sleek and modern looking, sourcing furniture from second hand markets and using mostly wood for the design of their houses. They apply other sustainable approaches such as green appliances, rainwater harvesting systems, smart energy monitoring tools and they encourage locally and organically-made foods and compositing waste. Cohabs also just recently acquired a 4,500 m2 abandoned theatre complex that they will reconvert into an “urban laboratory for thinkers, entrepreneurs, artists and doers from around the world”. This acquisition is an interesting use of vacant space in an urban setting, and if done correctly Cohabs could integrate the architectural heritage and social history of the neighborhood into the design of their new space. Designing shared living spaces: for the community or by the community?
The convenience factor of having fully furnished rooms and common areas in co-living spaces is a very attractive sales pitch for many residents living in these types of homes. Individuals can make large savings not having to buy furniture and kitchen amenities / supplies and are increasingly seeking access to experience and services rather than ownership. The idea of being able to move into a new home without having to own anything and not needing to purchase as many household items is appealing and there is somewhat of a trend of people moving into co-living spaces for these conveniences rather than community experience. Although less ownership and fully furnished homes is an attractive and convenient offer, it does also reduce the potential for residents to personalize their new rooms and living areas. Since a lot of interior design decisions are decided by operators before residents move in, co-livers are left to reside in a home that may not fully feel like their own. George Green makes a similar reflexion in his master’s dissertation and argues that large co-living developments are not experimental enough in their design, which limits the opportunity for personalization and resident engagement: “Unable to control the space around them, and adapt its function to their individual or collective needs, residents struggle to take control and build confidence in their immediate environment, which is being reflected in short tenancies.” Although companies like Zoku in Amsterdam offer options for personalising residents’ rooms by swapping art pieces that they provide, and most spaces allow for the purchase of the additional lamp or other necessary bedroom objects, this remains limited and residents may not feel like they have much say in the design of their home environment. Similarly, when looking at the results from Space10 and Anton & Irene’s One Shared House 2030 research project, 80% of people responded that they thought only the common areas should come furnished in co-living spaces, and that they would furnish their own private space. These contrasting positions on who should design and furnish co-living spaces are interesting discussions for the future of the co-living sector. Another finding in One Shared House 2030’s research initiative was that over half of the respondents agreed that architects (27%) and designers (34%) are the best suited to organize a co-living community, compared to individuals in the real estate, social work, business, community organizing, tech and government sectors. These findings may represent a call for a more user-centered approach to the design of coliving spaces, and although co-livers appreciate the convenience of furnishings and the provided services, they may also seek more decision making power in the immediate environments that they call home. With a creative use of space, co-living operators have the potential to increase the wellbeing and creativity of their residents by focusing on designing spaces that facilitate interaction, value ecological standards and regenerative design approaches and are centered around the needs of their communities.
The ins-and-outs of shared living communication
Communication skills for integrating into a co-living community Shared living communities can be complicated places to live, and therefore require certain guidelines for how to communicate and share responsibilities amongst one another. This holds true for everyone who is part of the co-living community, including the operational staff of the space itself. Placing a strong importance of having balanced communications between residents and between residents and operational staff is crucial for creating an unforgettable shared living experience. Community facilitators have an important role in identifying and applying different communication techniques into the shared living experience of each of the residents living in a specific co-living space. Implementing ideas from helpful resources such as Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication, A Language of Life, Mind Tools’ The 7C’s of Communication, Colin Craig’s conflict resolution Iceberg Model, and Kim Scott’s Radical Candor feedback tips can go a long way in ensuring residents can effectively resolve conflicts, give constructive feedback and respect one another on a daily basis. The potential for storytelling in social work has also been widely supported, so much so that strategy guides for grantmakers have been published that give advice on how funders and nonprofits can use storytelling for needs-and-strengths assessments, community organizing, public education, and program evaluation. These storytelling and communication skills can be used to provide a deeper community experience within a co-living space, but can also help operators expand their brand in a way that is coherent and attractive for investors. An important part of integrating these ideals into the community experience starts with the onboarding process. From the beginning of their experience, new residents need to understand certain guidelines and manifestos that are curated by co-living operators themselves so that they behave with a sense of accountability and respect, and possibly even adhere to a certain set of shared values. PUREHOUSE LAB’s Communication Research Forum Coordinators, Xavier Cazard and Valérie Decroix emphasize the importance of setting the appropriate expectations from the first welcome, and propose offering new members “Personal Co-living Experience” style guides, chances to present themselves in front of the rest of the community (through a pitch session, for example), orientation nights, buddy systems with established residents and clearly clarifying shared values from the beginning. Cazard and Decroix reference Swedish co-living operator TechFarm, and their set of strong values around ‘conscious co-living’ and ‘entrepreneurial problem solving’, which include remaining curious, courageous, communicative, committed and compassionate, among other values. Once a resident feels like they are integrating into their co-living community successfully, there are also a few communication techniques that are important for maintaining strong relationships and connections with their fellow community members. When asking Base Commons founder Al Jeffrey about these sorts of techniques, he referred to one in particular, circling, several times: “Circling is a group meditation/sharing process to allow groups to explore any given topic and allow open dialogue around it … Purpose of these is to create space for openly sharing.
Important that these are facilitated carefully as to allow vulnerability to be shared and the undercurrent of group dynamics to rise to the surface.” Jeffrey also emphasizes the importance of group agreements (such as the ‘Blueprint of We’ model) and forming an evolving document for all residents that outlines the operating principles of the space. These principles must be upheld by community members, but also staff, and according Cazard and Decroix the staff has a responsibility to keep a strong level of engagement with residents and respect each of the members’ ideas, feedbacks and projects that align with the set of shared values defined by the operator and/or group. These communication skills, storytelling techniques and onboarding guidelines are crucial elements of assuring that co-living spaces respect a set of shared values and the residents within the space respect one another. Creating a sense of accountability within the community leads to powerful community engagement that contributes to an increase of leadership and empowerment within residents of a co-living space, which ultimately has the potential to diffuse into local neighborhoods and on a citywide level. The impact and importance of external communications As noted above, co-living operators often use storytelling methods such as co-living testimonials to market their spaces to the outside world and attract new residents. Since coliving is still a relatively new concept, people unfamiliar with the concept may be curious to hear and see what it is like to live in a co-living space. For example, The Collective has recently launched their We Are The Collective photo and video series, and other spaces have similar series to showcase their space and introduce experienced co-livers from their communities (see also Sun and Co.’s Meet The Colivers, People of Roam and Cohabs’ Meet a Member series). These are valuable tools to use in order to market a space and the coliving phenomenon to potential residents and also to create a sense of value and connection amongst current members, making them feel like they are part of something new and innovative. External communications are an important tool for marketing and sales, but it also helps in the realm of investments and developing an attractiveness for city planners and potential partners. Marketing tools such as these help demonstrate the social and cultural capital that exist in co-living spaces, making them an important measurement for impact investments, for example. This can also help traditional real estate developers wanting to enter the coliving market get a better understanding of what these spaces offer to residents. Additionally, these tools give co-living spaces visibility to city planners and policymakers who could be interested in co-living spaces in terms of territorial marketing strategies, in order to highlight them as innovation spaces that contribute vibrant dynamics to the social, cultural, human and economic capital in their cities. These external communication tools, combined with the communication skills needed to integrate members and to foster environments that encourage dialogue around resolving conflicts are integral aspects of the co-living experience. Similarly to other aspects of coliving spaces, such as the design, communication amongst members and the staff is usually more effective when they are made collectively through group agreements. Although coliving operators must enforce operational codes and health and safety regulations, there are other types of group agreements that can be made around shared values, onboarding and responsibilities that are done through more participatory approaches. By integrating certain
communication tools and skills that are used for participatory community building and shared living (some of which have been suggested in this chapter), co-living operators can provide residents with a sense of autonomy through decision making powers. These elements of empowerment add to an authentic shared living experience that inspires individuals to become engaged and participative. The Latin and Old French origins of the term communications stem from the ideas of community and fellowship, and without strong communications there is no community!
What does it mean to live in community? Building a strong community experience in co-living spaces The ‘co’ in co-living can mean many things to a co-living operator and its residents: it can range from a type of corporate, commercial and convenient co-living offer to a more collective, (e)cological and community focused experience. There is a difficulty within the sector of understanding whether or not individuals are opting into the co-living experience for the convenience rather than the community, however, many individuals do come for both. Ryan Fix, co-founder of PUREHOUSE LAB and also its Community Research Forum Coordinator uses the metaphor of martial arts practices to explain this dichotomy: “Like the metaphor of chi gong and other martial arts practices that use the opponent's energy against themselves, co-living attracts customers which desire more convenient lifestyles and yet once they engage with the experience, they become active participants in the community. They transform from customers who consume to members that contribute. The magic is in the design”.
Building a strong community in a co-living space is no easy task, and depends on various aspects, including many of the communication skills, design implementations and onboarding and curation techniques that have already been referred to in previous sections. Having a strong community in a shared living space means having residents that are engaged in communal activities and responsibilities, and making them eventually feel empowered enough through leadership and participation that they admit to feeling an increase in overall well-being and confidence in their everyday lives. The communal bonds tend to be stronger when the creative process is participatory, opening dialog between community leaders and members. As a previous co-living operator of Pure House in Brooklyn, New York, Fix describes what it is like when he has seen co-livers thriving and feeling well: “Co-living offers an exciting opportunity to empower individuals to live to their full potential. To do so, wellbeing must be embedded into the core offering and design of the communal experience. Being well is about being connected to oneself and thus, intuitively knowing what we need to feel well. When we are connected, our intuition drives our actions toward being well”. In order to achieve this wellbeing and engagement among residents, operators must implement experience design, shared values, rituals, events and curation techniques into all phases of the co-living experience (from onboarding to communal events to maintenance responsibilities). Creating a safe space for people to be themselves through weekly rituals such as circling sharing processes is also a critical ingredient in fostering a nurturing community. It is important to have consistency for these rituals and events, whether they are weekly or monthly events, or even events that align with seasonal traditions, and these seasonal celebrations can also be a strategy for organizing rituals and events open to the public to join as well. The organization of these rituals and events should be done through participatory process, making the experience of living in community intentionally designed to foster authentic leadership qualities such as authenticity, compassion and integrity. As noted, there are strong leadership and empowerment opportunities in co-living, and shared living spaces can be a driver for teaching people how to become community leaders and giving them the confidence to design participatory processes that have positive social impact within their communities and outwards. Co-living spaces as local neighborhood hubs Neighborhood hubs are “gathering places where community members can build relationships, strengthen their community, work collectively towards a more sustainable way of living” and “intentionally bring people together to carry out services, activities, programs and events that serve the local community”.3 Co-living spaces have a huge potential to become local neighborhood hubs and many spaces already implement measures in order to do so with their own residents and local partnerships with community organizations for their surroundings. For example, OpenDoor’s Euclid Manor space in Oakland, California places a strong emphasis on being a local actor for positive change: “The theme of Euclid Manor is transformation and social impact. Residents are passionate about creative positive change in themselves, in the community and in the world - and realize this through a slew of resident-led creative projects and social ventures’. OpenDoor’s Euclid Manor space is not 3Gurr, C, McCurdy, A & Rose, S (2012). Neighbourhood Hubs: Engaging Communities for Sustainability. Blekinge Institute of Technology
the only community of co-livers to have this emphasis on local change and social impacts, and Fix discusses the benefits of these positive actions: “Co-living spaces are not islands, but rather resource rich communities of talented individuals that desire to foster a positive impact in the world. This starts with their local communities, which also have resources to be shared and needs to be met. When co-living spaces are designed with processes that foster collaboration within the community around them, everyone wins”. Another example of this is Happy Bern Lab in Switzerland, which has occupied a house for one year prior to demolition with a group of unique individuals who desire to foster a positive relational dynamic with their neighbors. Happy Bern Lab “gives space to local heros to transform their neighborhood, give space to social change-makers to take a break and experience the beauty of abundance (without having to pay for food and rent), give space to let deep, transformative conversations emerge and to re-discover human collaborations”. As they approach the end of their occupancy, they are now in discussions with the mayor of Bern and other cities in Switzerland to replicate this model to occupy transitional properties to foster more positive civic engagement and participation within local neighborhoods and with thought leaders from around Western Europe and the world. Co-living spaces are full of social, cultural and human capital that can be shared with local communities to become actors of change within their neighborhoods. The sharing of these resources, talents and ideas with community groups and residents from their surroundings (and vice versa) means that co-living spaces can build strong ties within and outside of their buildings in order to become strong participants of social sustainability in their cities. Collectively building a strong community should be placed at the forefront of the values for co-living operators and the residents within their spaces, otherwise co-living just falls under the category of another serviced apartment residential complex in the real estate sector. Although co-living can be considered as an entrepreneurial approach to providing ‘community as a service’ to those who can afford it, there are also examples of co-liver testimonials that describe a strong sense of connection with other residents and their local communities, opening up individuals to new possibilities and opportunities for personal transformation they did not know existed previously. If building communities means helping people realize their authentic selves and full potential, than co-living spaces can become hubs of growth, leadership and awareness within the individuals that engage themselves in these communities. As noted in the beginning of this section, it is up to co-living operators to decide where they would like to sit in the ‘co-spectrum’, and whether or not building strong community experience is one of the leading values of their organizations.
Epilogue The games have just begun and we’re barely scratching the surface here, but it’s safe to say this nascent co-living movement of the past few years is quickly emerging as a new asset class...as the business folks among us like to say. Some might argue that co-living has bright prospects of becoming a primary typology for the real estate sector as a whole; and according to the successes and expansion of the sector so far it already seems like it should. With the global majority flocking to cities at an ever increasing rate (some stats show 60% living in cities by 2030), we must drastically rethink how we live and share resources. Then there’s the loneliness epidemic infecting modern society en masse, and studies are showing that individuals in social isolation have disrupted sleep patterns, altered immune systems and higher levels of stress. As this publication seeks to demonstrate, appropriately designed co-living spaces can provide alternative lifestyles and support systems that respond directly to these health epidemics. If it’s not already clear by the disparate manifestations of co-living, it’s important to highlight that co-living is not limited to housing, but rather it seeks to integrate various aspects of our life into a cohesive, convenient and collaborative communal experience that offers a higher quality of living for all. And on the topic of ‘all’, the greatest opportunity for co-living is its potential to offer a quality lifestyle that prioritizes affordability, equitability, diversity and accessibility for all. With this social sustainability in mind, there is also a strong potential for the hybridization of shared living spaces that are designed as eco-systems to include coworking, fabrication labs, cultural and green spaces, urban agriculture, social housing, holistic health and education centers and co-living accommodation under one roof. These types of hybrid spaces can become neighborhood hubs and contribute positively to their neighborhoods while reducing their footprints of their cities through social and ecological sustainability measures. To this end, we at Pure House Lab intend to drive this narrative of ‘affordability, equitability, diversity and accessibility for all’ through our activities. We believe it’s a priority to engage government as allies and partners in the efficient adaptation of policy that promotes co-living and other forms of micro-housing and sustainable community-based living. In doing so, incentives should be created to attract entrepreneurs, operators and developers to innovate in this attractive space. Through the collective intelligence embodied in our knowledge network, our members collaborate to advance solutions that can be shared and disseminated globally with urban planners, architects, designers, policy makers and beyond. We hope you find this publication a useful resource and would welcome you to become a member of the lab. Please join at purehouselab.org.