Alexis Kalagas
Assemble Papers
2019
### đ Context of the Article This article, authored by Alexis Kalagas and published on Assemble Papers, delves into the concept of "Housing as a Service" and the evolution of commercial co-living as a viable alternative to traditional renting. Published on May 20, 2019, it reflects on trends in the sharing economy, where services are increasingly preferred over ownership. ### đ˘ The Rise of Co-Living The article highlights WeWork's significant impact on the real estate industry, noting its transformation from a co-working space provider to a pioneer in the co-living sector with the introduction of WeLive. WeWork's business model is based on leasing large spaces and subletting them, creating a flexible living environment designed for modern lifestyles. Co-living caters to a new generation of professionals seeking convenience, community, and comfort, often bundled in all-inclusive pricing models. ### đ Models of Co-Living Three main co-living models have emerged: 1. Digital Nomad Focus: Properties like Roam offer communal living and workspaces in desirable locations like Bali and Miami. 2. Institutionalized Share Houses: Ventures like LifeX convert large apartments into shared living spaces for select residents. 3. Hybrid Models: Companies such as WeLive and The Collective provide communal amenities alongside longer-term living arrangements, targeting residents who seek both community and privacy. ### đ Urban Experimentation Cities like Berlin, San Francisco, London, and New York are hotbeds for co-living experimentation, driven by high housing pressures and a transient workforce. Critics argue that while these co-living spaces promote community, they may reduce private space in favor of higher yields, thus commodifying shared living arrangements. ### đ The Australian Perspective In Australia, the emphasis on homeownership has historically overshadowed rental options. Recent reforms aim to better protect tenants in a rapidly expanding private rental market, where the number of renters is growing faster than overall household growth. The article discusses the shift in perception towards renters as consumers of space and services, suggesting that co-living can redefine landlord-tenant relationships. ### đą Future of Housing The article posits that co-living may represent a significant shift towards sustainable housing models, merging quality, community, and affordability. Innovative housing solutions will need to balance these elements to address the evolving needs of urban populations. The potential for "housing-as-a-service" is explored, with examples from cities like ZĂźrich showcasing professionalized, socially-oriented housing cooperatives that prioritize shared amenities and community engagement over exclusivity.
How commercial co-living aims to redesign rentingby Alexis Kalagas
May 20, 2019
The sharing economy increasingly means that we subscribe to a service (transport, music, even clothes and cars) instead of buying the thing. But how does this work with housing?
In mid-January, co-working giant WeWork announced a $2.8 billion cash infusion, doubling its valuation in a little over twelve months. Nine years after launching with a single site in lower Manhattan, WeWork is the largest real estate tenant in both New York and London, and operates a network of 425 locations spanning 27 countries. Today, it is believed to be one of the most valuable privately held venture-backed companies in the world â part of a rarefied club that includes Uber and its Chinese ride-hailing rival DiDi. All three are major players in the rise of the âaccess economyâ: selling the convenience of frictionless access to services, versus the burden of owning and maintaining tangible property.
Left and right: interiors in WeLive Wall St. Photo courtesy of WeWork.
Salesforce first popularised the âsoftware-as-a-serviceâ model at the tail end of the 1990s dot-com boom, offering enterprise clients on-demand access to applications running on remote cloud-based infrastructure, rather than individual licenses. The âas-a-serviceâ terminology has since evolved into generalised shorthand for moves away from simply selling products to providing bundled services (and locking in recurring revenue). Increasingly, this means combining physical and digital systems, developing integrated platforms to support two-way engagement, and leveraging data to understand how products and services are consumed, in order to continually improve and personalise customer experience. We see this shift in everything from music (Spotify), to high-end clothing (Rent the Runway), printers (Xerox), lighting (Philips), and even jet engines (Rolls-Royce).
At its core, WeWorkâs business model is pure arbitrage: lease space in bulk from building owners and carve it up into smaller pieces to sublet at a premium.
At its core, WeWorkâs business model is pure arbitrage: lease space in bulk from building owners and carve it up into smaller pieces to sublet at a premium. But the company is also engaged in the first large-scale experiment in âspace-as-a-serviceâ: applying the principles of flexibility and user experience to a growing network of fixed real estate assets. A suite of memberships caters to the fluid requirements of freelancers, start-ups and large corporations alike, while tricked-out common areas, free-flowing craft beer, and in-person and online community management are meant to foster social interaction. WeWork claims the insights gleaned from observing user behaviour en masse allows it to further optimise and customise space.
In April 2016, WeWork unveiled âanother layer of [its] platformâ: a handful of upper floors at its 100 Wall Street location had been converted into 200 residential units. WeLive is part of a rapidly expanding group of ventures offering âco-livingâ in various forms. Many of these developments are an incongruous mash-up of Bay Area âhacker housesâ, decades-old Nordic co-housing ideas, traditional serviced apartments, rooming houses, and Airbnb-style short-stay accommodation, designed to cater to the plug-and-play lifestyles of a new generation of itinerant professionals. Marketing tag lines invariably invoke a blend of convenience, comfort and community. This largely entails flexible leases, furnished spaces, event programming, dedicated digital portals, and flat-rate pricing that bundles utilities, high-speed internet, cleaning and rent in all-inclusive plans.
So far, three versions of commercial co-living have emerged. The first is pitched at âdigital nomadsâ. Roam operates properties (often converted hotels) in places like Bali and Miami, which combine communal living with co-working facilities in a 21st-century spin on the âlive/workâ formula coined to market artist lofts in 1970s Soho. The second is closer to an institutionalised version of the share house. LifeX, for instance, manages a network of large apartments (300â350m2) in European capitals like Berlin and Copenhagen. What were once luxury homes for couples or families are converted into curated flat shares for four to eight approved members. Common and Starcity scale this approach to an entire branded mid- or high-rise building, either purpose-built or retrofitted.
Operators like WeLive and The Collective split the difference. Both offer access to co-working facilities and a range of hotel-style amenities â spas, gyms, a 24/7 concierge, chefâs kitchens, bars and restaurants â but also target longer-term residents. WeLive provides only a limited short-stay option (up to 30 days), while standard leases at The Collective generally run 9 or 12 months. Almost all forms of co-living involve an explicit trade-off: reduce your private footprint in exchange for higher-quality shared spaces. The Collective Old Oak was billed as the largest project of its type when it opened in northwest London in May 2016. Repurposing an office block into a hulking complex of 546 micro-units, a 10m2 room currently sets you back an eye-watering $500 per week.
Itâs no coincidence that co-living start-ups have gravitated to cities like Berlin, San Francisco, London and New York. Ostensibly âwinningâ the battle for capital and talent, they are urban testing-grounds, where rootless and cashed-up tech workers, heated real estate markets, and rising housing pressures add up to a recipe for experimentation. Co-living has attracted legitimate criticism. In particular, the pretext of âcommunityâ is often invoked to shrink private space and boost yields, commodifying shared lifestyles for an exclusive market. But, in another sense, these models â and the new generation of build-to-rent projects they have inspired â are also questioning the landlordâtenant relationship, rethinking development approaches for the private rental sector, and adapting existing buildings to respond to changes in how we live.
âIn any street⌠itâs always easy to tell the rented houses. Theyâre the ones where the lawn isnât mowed, the plants arenât watered and the fences arenât fixed.â
In Australia, the superiority of homeownership has long been elevated to an article of faith. Speaking to building industry representatives in Sydney in 1992, John Hewson, then the federal leader of the opposition, claimed notoriously, âIn any street⌠itâs always easy to tell the rented houses. Theyâre the ones where the lawn isnât mowed, the plants arenât watered and the fences arenât fixed.â Kick-started by Robert Menzies during the post-war boom, governments on both sides of the aisle have continued to support a range of policies that overtly, and tacitly, promote homeownership over other forms of housing tenure. Three-quarters of respondents in a 2017 ANU housing affordability poll strongly agreed that owning your own home is part of the Australian way of life.
The first legislation governing residential tenancies was only introduced in Victoria in 1980. Until then, aside from a brief window of rent and eviction controls imposed as a national security measure during World War II, the relationship between landlords and tenants had been shaped by archaic common law principles with roots in feudal England. The onus was on renters to ensure that legal protections were specified in the terms of their lease, including in relation to repairs, cleaning, rights of entry, and security deposits. As two reports from the ground-breaking 1975 Commission of Inquiry into Poverty observed, this assumed equal bargaining power and the possibility of negotiation. In reality, landlords offered lease agreements on a âtake it or leave itâ basis.
Years later, Adrian Bradbrook â a lead author of both reports â likened renters to consumers, as they âconsume space and servicesâ. But almost four decades into the consumer-oriented regulatory era he helped bring about, and amid the rollout of Victoriaâs latest âRent Fairâ reform package, weâre only just beginning to rebalance the system to better protect and serve tenants, rather than reduce a large swathe of the population to sources of yield for a cottage industry of two million âmum and dadâ investors. Meanwhile, the private rental sector is the fastest expanding segment of the housing market. Between 2006 and 2016, it increased at twice the rate of overall household growth, and is now home to more couples, more children, a greater mix of incomes, and a widening pool of long-term renters.
New models will need to strike the right balance between mobility and agency, between quality and affordability, and between community and autonomy.
The Canadian urbanist Richard Florida has argued that similar shifts in the United States point to a âgreat housing resetâ, part of the transition from an industrial to highly clustered knowledge economy. Co-living start-ups certainly believe long-run trend lines are moving in their favour, with some harbouring totalising visions. The former chief operating officer of The Collective mused publicly about eventually offering free housing by monetising its residents (that is, selling data and privileged access to third parties), while Miguel McKelvey, co-founder of WeWork, says the company aspires to be nothing less than âa holistic support system or lifestyle solutionâ. (Although it has diversified further into gyms [Rise By We] and primary schools [WeGrow], WeLive has fallen far short of initial projections outlined in a leaked 2014 investor deck.)
Demand notwithstanding, if co-living is the most fully realised version of a âhousing-as-a-serviceâ approach to date, itâs only one of many possible futures for a reimagined rental experience. New models will need to strike the right balance between mobility and agency, between quality and affordability, and between community and autonomy. And they will need to apply creative strategies to realise the latent potential in the rental stock that already exists. This means engaging simultaneously in spatial design, service design and strategic design. It also means thinking in terms of the âextended homeâ â not just what can be shared or networked within a single house or building, but also the kinds of collective resources that could be activated on a neighbourhood level.
Studio in The Collective Old Oak.
Floorplan of a studio in The Collective Old Oak.
Rooftop garden in The Collective Old Oak. Photo courtesy of The Collective.
Communal spaces in The Collective Old Oak. Photo courtesy of The Collective.
Starcity SoMa Start Park floorplan. Photo courtesy of Starcity.
Studio in The Collective Old Oak.
Floorplan of a studio in The Collective Old Oak.
Rooftop garden in The Collective Old Oak. Photo courtesy of The Collective.
Communal spaces in The Collective Old Oak. Photo courtesy of The Collective.
Starcity SoMa Start Park floorplan. Photo courtesy of Starcity.
Studio in The Collective Old Oak.
Floorplan of a studio in The Collective Old Oak.
Rooftop garden in The Collective Old Oak. Photo courtesy of The Collective.
Communal spaces in The Collective Old Oak. Photo courtesy of The Collective.
Starcity SoMa Start Park floorplan. Photo courtesy of Starcity.
The real question is whether this is possible without a transition to more institutional involvement in the sector. Australia has become a nation of landlords, with tax concessions encouraging a narrow focus on capital gains over long-term returns. Incipient forms of âhousing-as-a-serviceâ already exist â witness the rapid growth of student accommodation â and others are on the way. In February, Singapore-based Hmlet entered the Sydney market after acquiring Caper Co-Living, while a flurry of developer-led build-to-rent projects are in the pipeline. But one need only look to cities like ZĂźrich, where 90 percent of residents are tenants and the largest non-profit housing cooperatives manage portfolios of more than 5000 apartments, to see a professionalised, socially-oriented vision at scale. Tweaking the user experience of this model through community-driven digital innovations could offer an alternative path.
Crucially, the social dimension here encompasses more than approaches to financing and affordability. Like co-living developments, the new generation of ZĂźrich cooperatives are experimenting with how to provide a range of shared amenities in a rental context: from yoga rooms, to roof terraces, restaurants and crèches. But instead of looking inward, embracing the âhotelisationâ of housing and a vertical form of gated community, recent projects have aspired to an openness and permeability in their design and mix of uses that recreates the diversity and dynamism of urban life in microcosm. As the rental sector emerges as the site where labour market, demographic and technological shifts converge, it may also offer the best hope for our housing stock to catch up with social reality.
We thank Alexis for an in-depth look into co-living, and its potential to deliver true community. This article draws on research Alexis conducted as part of Harvard GSDâs Richard Rogers Fellowship program. It also appears in the new Assemble Papers print issue #11: Transitions â come join us for the launch on 23 May!