It is no secret that the proportion of single-adult households is growing across the world. Many deem the coliving typology of housing as the solution (1, 2, 3, and more) to increase the supply of affordable housing available to this growing segment of young adults, and empty nesters alike. However, there are several challenges lying beyond the purview of an average consumer’s understanding as to why the ‘no-brainer’ option has not yet proliferated across certain countries - particularly those with a large proportion of households able to afford their private space at a marginally higher rate per sq. ft. in the heart of the city.

Sometimes, looking back in history helps to evaluate the root causes of the challenges we face today. Between the early-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century, working class populations thronged to larger cities to earn a livelihood. Boarding houses and other such establishments offered affordable housing solutions to this population, even if it was just for a single night’s sleep. Since many of these establishments operated on a limited operating expenditure, they offered shared facilities such as bathrooms and kitchens. These were the original ‘coliving’ spaces and were known as Single-Room-Occupancy Units (SROs), prevalent in bigger cities in the US like New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco, amongst other metropolitan areas.

However, at the latter end of the century, landlords started illegally sub-dividing their apartments and letting out single rooms to low-income families. As these rooms were not designed to accommodate larger families, the sub-optimal room sizes - coupled with the increasing cost of housing - forced large families to live in overcrowded conditions. This sparked a health concern owing to uninhabitable conditions caused by overcrowding, which led to the respective city administrations creating restrictions that eliminated the possibility of recurrence of such conditions. As a result, several regulations (such as those listed below) were imposed that, to this day, limit the development of shared housing (aka coliving) in cities where it is desired the most:

1. Density control regulations that limit the number of households especially for small lot sizes (e.g. New York City’s regulation for small zoning lots). 
2. Establishment of minimum room sizes in a housing unit to an extent that even the minimum dimensions were defined for ‘appropriate’ lighting and ventilation (e.g. New York City Housing Maintenance Code).
3. Laws that make the sharing of a unit by more than two or three unrelated adults illegal (e.g. New York, Washington DC, etc).
4. Minimum parking regulations for dwelling units to accommodate high dependency on private vehicles in cities across the US and in Europe.

‍

‍

These regulations posed challenges for developers to experiment with new typologies of housing options that were more attuned to the demands from the demographic trend. As a result, most development was focused on options that we are familiar with today. These include one/two/three-bedroom apartments complete with a kitchen and bathrooms for each room – a dream house for a burgeoning middle-class, and one which most millennials grew up in. Owing to the growing demand for such traditional typologies supported by reurbanization - movement back to city centres - and fuelled by apprehension to fund affordable housing, even real estate funding agencies more often than not backed the development of only the traditional typology. Cut to the 2000s, and these very homes are now occupied by either an old couple here, a roommate situation there - each of whom is finding it difficult to maintain the space, or not having the need for all of the space to themselves. As more and more cities face the challenge to bridge the demand for single-person households due to the sheer lack of momentum, and as we increasingly rely on coliving spaces to be the ultimate solution, several areas of concern need to be evaluated:

1. Occupation of units by a transient population:

Most occupants live out of the coliving typology only for a transient period - a money-crunch, changing job, empty-nesters wanting less hassles, etc. These situations rapidly change, and the occupants quickly find new and more permanent homes. Owing to this situation, it is logical to understand that the occupants may seldom want to invest in the long-term development of the neighbourhood. This incurs a NIMBY attitude from the neighbours of the facility.‍

2. The need for individual car ownership: 

Our cities are still struggling to keep up with infrastructural needs of the growing population. Several cities are overrun by cars (considered as an asset in the global South), while many others are facing challenges to upgrade their public transit service delivery. Until our transit systems become
more efficient or the dependence on vehicles is reduced, the need for parking spaces in our residential buildings might not go away.

3. Higher cost of construction due to regulations:

Owing to the long list of regulations shared above and the cost of land in the city, it becomes increasingly expensive to develop these properties at a lower cost. This incidentally pushes the price higher for the occupant to pay - rental or otherwise. The target occupants are in a phase of life where paying a premium might be challenging. This causes a stalemate between the developer fulfilling the supply and the occupant who is in need, but cannot afford what the supply is offering. Investors also understand this dynamic, making them wary of investing in such developments.

4. Fear of the past: 

Finally, the fact that the cost is higher than what is affordable does not help abate fear of past incidences of overcrowding in SROs, making the city administration sceptical about giving a green light to these developments.

With rapidly changing demographics, and a lag in demand and supply of housing in general, it is crucial to understand the actual needs and channel development of shared housing accordingly in major cities. If action is not taken soon, then cities could drive an entire generation into choosing to live in roommate situations as a default, rather than out of choice. Some administrations believe in the power of innovation coming from risk-taking developers and new business ventures. Using those, the following recommendations could potentially hold a key to drive up the development of the coliving typology:

1. Calculating an optimum density factor adjusting for the current demographic trends to allow development of a greater number of smaller units within a given property. The appropriately sized units shall be nested among conventional ones, each sharing the benefits of the other. Highly functional neighbourhoods thrive on a good mix of demography.
2. The investment made by cities towards development of public transit infrastructure is supported by innovation companies collaborating with cities to ensure last-mile connectivity through ride-hailing services via mobile applications. This confluence has the potential of ridding housing developments from redundancies such as minimum parking requirements. More cities must collaborate with private companies to evaluate the possibility of ensuring door-to-door connectivity for citizens through better-designed networks and seamless service delivery of commuting options.
3. Tremendous innovation has also been seen in the architecture and construction industry, where high- performing materials are now available at a higher value for money, and with improved aesthetics. Use of these materials in lieu of defining the minimum space size or other such regulations which cause redundancies in space planning could help extract higher potential value from a development.

‍

The following key stakeholders can each play a pivotal role to further the process of development of the coliving and the shared housing typology:

Adopting the above recommendations could help significantly reduce the costs of development which would eventually be passed on to the occupant. With a good amount of predictability in sales, even real estate investors could be incentivised to boost the development of the coliving housing typology. Finally, while coliving is only one among many cost-effective ways that cities can fulfil the ever-increasing demand for housing, it alone cannot be made to bear the task of creating harmonious communities. City agencies must work in tandem to create better neighbourhoods that could then host these coliving housing units in a sustainable manner. Even if the demand for such a typology turns out to be only a passing trend, cities need to allow for an array of housing options to respond to the housing needs and changing demands.