Emerging from this radical shift to our way of life, there seems to be two schools of thought when it comes to predicting what a post-covid world will look like. Those that believe we’ve been presented an opportunity to reimagine how we live and work, and those that suggest most constructs in our daily lives will return to the normality we once knew.

As someone not accustomed to sitting on the fence, my views lie somewhere in the middle, hoping collectively we might use COVID-19 as a force to rebalance and reshape our futures, yet knowing that mass social and cultural change happens slowly and incrementally.

Perhaps in the end, 2020 will be seen as just another blip along our long and winding evolutionary road when looked upon in hindsight. Yet perhaps, it will be seen as a moment of great significance for humanity.

A similar analogy could be used to describe the crossroad we seem to be heading towards in the context of the coliving sector. Whilst we talk a lot about the operational ethos of coliving, it is the physical characteristics of the assets themselves which are under most scrutiny. Without clear benchmarks for the asset class, we may find coliving in its Sui Generis format, becomes just a blip along the slow and meandering evolutionary road of real estate – rather than the game changer it ought to be.

Of course, in today’s fast paced, digitally-driven world, it makes sense we should consider the built environment not just in terms of steel and concrete, but for the effects it has on the people who inhabit it. Without doubt, the social, psychological and experiential themes that characterise coliving have been catalysts for change in the broader real estate sector. Yet before we can truly cement coliving’s rightful role in a broad, mixed and balanced housing strategy, we must come to an acceptable set of minimum standards for what coliving, in its physical form, should deliver.

Despite the tangible benefits that coliving brings in terms of culture, ideology and innovation, there is yet to my mind, an asset to which the sector can point collectively and say: this is what coliving could look like. This is the gold standard. In spite of this, we have already entered a secondary evolutionary phase of coliving, with over 2,000 operational beds and around 8,300 beds with planning consent (in the UK alone). However, there is little consistency when it comes to key physical characteristics such as private unit size, quantum or type of amenity space and format of Affordable Housing provision.

In a functioning free market economy, originators always spawn or are succeeded by new, and often preferable models, offering superior products more tailored to consumer demand. Yet, in coliving, without a set of benchmark principles for the asset, we may find the door closes early on the sector, stifling the oxygen it needs for the evolutionary process to continue.

‘In a functioning free market economy, originators always spawn or are succeeded by new and often preferable models, offering superior products more tailored to consumer demand. Yet, in coliving, without a set of benchmark principles for the asset, we may find the door closes early on the sector, stifling the oxygen it needs for the evolutionary process to continue.’

‍

‍

Whilst the Greater London Authority (GLA) has given us a set of general principles on coliving, (page 233 of The London Plan) it still seems as though we are without broad consensus on planning policy. Even the GLA have clearly not felt convinced enough to grant a consent, albeit we all hope that will change soon.

As policymakers continue to grapple with coliving, their legislative focus rightly intended to protect occupiers and enforce quality standards, investors too are beginning to set out minimum requirements for investment, such as floor areas, spatial design and building scale amongst others.

Of course, setting minimum standards does not mean suppressing innovation. The sector was born out of young, pioneering entrepreneurial spirits, disrupting and shaking at the foundations of traditional real estate. And so much of coliving is patently an umbrella term for the changing way in which people live and interact with their environment. Yet sometimes being unable to quantify a product, makes it more challenging to underline its undeniable necessity.

Whilst we salute those pioneers, without whom we would not be having this discussion, we must recognise that passion, vision and perseverance may not be enough on its own when it comes to wide acceptance of a new housing model and an institutionally credible asset class. The next phase of growth in this sector will require regulatory support, broad investor confidence and probably sponsorship from a few more grey hairs! As a sector, we either seize the initiative and aim to shape the narrative or wait until the parameters are defined for us.

The good news is, the silent majority knows the housing delivery model is broken and cannot indefinitely remain the same. For every Manchester or Dublin City Council, there are numerous other Local Authorities and Councils across the country that recognise the positive impact of coliving.

Most of us know, when designed purposefully, coliving is a model for how high-density, mixed-use buildings can revitalise town centres up and down the country and improve the quality of life for city-dwellers from different demographic and socio-economic backgrounds. Vertically integrated urban villages are critically important to the future success of our cities and the health and wellbeing of their inhabitants. In this regard, coliving acts as our blueprint.

‍

‍

With all this in mind, the following are some of the key physical attributes which I believe warrant prescribed minimum standards to support the GLA and others in formalising policy. To be clear, I am not referring to the mainstream model of coliving in the US, which is predominantly a condo-style format, or that of Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs), but rather the studio format of coliving delivered under a Sui Generis use-class in the UK (page 233 of The London Plan).

• Private spaces. It is increasingly hard to justify small spaces simply due to the amount of additional shared space in a building. Whilst a mix of sizes is important, the main focus should be designing around the needs of the occupier, to provide them a long- term and sustainable housing solution. Small spaces tend to create transient occupier groups, exacerbate the challenges faced by renters and fail to solve the housing issues faced by local authorities. We have anecdotal commentary on what that size should be, but a confirmed and rationalised minimum would benefit us all.
• Kitchens. Support for large centralised shared kitchens is challenging, especially given most of the survey data from occupants suggest they prefer smaller kitchen areas distributed throughout a building and shared by fewer people. Defining quantum per resident is challenging, but ensures we find the right balance between optimal space and resident satisfaction, reducing the risk of higher turnover rates and possibly increased voids.
• Bathrooms. All too often an afterthought, squeezed in to ensure the overall unit size is not breached, a bathroom is a sanctuary and must be functional in terms of usability and storage capacity, with a prescribed minimum space standard.
• Amenity areas. It is questionable to deem areas such as laundry rooms or communal kitchens amenity space, as core zones such as these are necessary to performing basic living functions. Whilst the GLA has speculated 3.5 sqm per resident, it is essential we quantify what a true amenity space is or risk ending up with areas that are shared simply to increase the rentable capacity of a building. Holistically, amenity spaces should have purpose above and beyond basic living and be designed so as to improve the experience of residents and support their changing lifestyle needs.
• External space. Just as with internal amenity, a new build development should provide a suitable amount of external space relative to its scale and intended number of residents. Aside of being a basic need, we have witnessed through lockdown the effects of being confined indoors and should future proof all “residential” buildings with safe and accessible outdoor areas going forwards.
• Additional uses. Increasingly seen as a core component of coliving, to serve both residents and the wider community. Additional use classes such as workspace (coworking), retail, food and beverage further highlight how coliving operates well in mixed-use form, and can act as a facilitator to reposition towns and buildings which no longer have economic purpose. Although not a prerequisite, where these uses are not viable, one could question the legitimacy of coliving in that location.
• Upselling space. Whilst it is perfectly acceptable to offer certain pay-as-you-go services, assuming “lifestyle access memberships”, charging for coworking space, use of a basic gym, access to storage lockers etc., must be adopted with caution in a valuation appraisal and be fair and reasonable.
• Affordable Housing. The GLA is mistaken to suggest coliving cannot provide affordable homes and should substitute this with a payment in lieu (PiL) (page 233 of The London Plan). We have already seen some council’s preference for housing over cash sums. What is important however, is to make clear that offering a coliving unit with a nominal discount to market rent (DMR), should not be an acceptable contribution. Where coliving assets can provide C3 residential housing onsite, this could be in the form of negotiated DMR units as with the adopted methodology for Build-to-Rent. Flexibility may hold the key, where DMR residential units exist alongside coliving units and perhaps topped up by a PiL. The debate can then turn to what types of DMR units should be delivered.
• Sustainability. As a dictum of coliving evangelists everywhere, sustainable principles in design and build should be designed-in from day one. It seems plausible that certifications such as the WELL Building StandardTM could be used as a measure by policymakers to ensure quality standards with the same rigour seen in other asset classes.

Whilst this is not a conclusive list, I believe consensus on these areas will help ensure the sustainable roll out of coliving and the support from both policymakers and investors alike. We have already seen throughout the COVID-19 outbreak, coliving’s ability to adapt, evolve and weather the vagaries of social change, and we can go further.

The quality of our home resonates through the quality of our life. If we can get the physical attributes right, I have no doubt that coliving’s role as a housing model of the future will be set in stone, (or preferably prefabricated cross laminated timber)!