Domestic Realism or Something Worse?

Overview of the Essay

The article “Domestic Realism or Something Worse?” is published on the Weird Economies platform and authored by Helen Hester, a researcher known for her work on housing and socio‑economic critique. The piece examines the concept of domestic realism—how contemporary housing, especially the owner‑occupied single‑family home, is presented as the inevitable and desirable norm—and evaluates the rise of commercial co‑living as a potential counter‑imaginary within European urban contexts.

Defining Domestic Realism

Domestic realism is described as the pervasive belief that the traditional home model is the only functional and normative way of living. It links property ownership to generational wealth and frames alternative housing forms as inferior. The article references Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism and highlights how this ideology persists despite growing unaffordability of single‑family homes across Europe.

Emergence of Commercial Co‑Living

Co‑living is presented as a high‑density, profit‑driven housing typology that bundles private rooms with extensive shared amenities. Europe’s fastest‑growing residential asset class, co‑living accounts for 20‑25 % of all co‑living beds on the continent, with London alone providing roughly a quarter of this supply. The Collective Old Oak, recently sold for around £60 million, exemplifies the model’s scale and investment appeal.

Key Data on Co‑Living Scale

• 20–25 % of Europe’s co‑living beds are located in London.
• Amsterdam follows with about 15 % of the total.
• The sector is identified as one of the fastest‑growing residential asset classes in Europe.
• Large‑scale purpose‑built shared living is now guided by the London Plan’s “Large‑scale purpose‑built shared living” guidance (2024).

Promised Benefits and Public Luxury Concept

The article outlines a vision of “public luxury,” where collective amenities (libraries, gyms, rooftop gardens, shared tools) are provided at no extra cost, aiming to free residents from routine domestic labour. Proponents argue this model can increase temporal sovereignty and reduce individual household burdens.

Critiques of the Co‑Living Model

Multiple criticisms are detailed:

• The community is commodified, with residents treated as assets rather than genuine social partners.
• Access is restricted to affluent young professionals, excluding families, students, and lower‑income groups.
• Co‑living developments often function as vertical gated communities, limiting broader urban interaction.
• The model may accelerate gentrification and repurpose affordable housing forms into profit‑oriented “lifestyle” products.

Regulatory and Planning Context

Co‑living projects like The Collective Old Oak required extensive negotiation with the Greater London Authority, resulting in new planning agreements that limit occupants to graduate students or professionals, explicitly excluding children and undergraduates. The London Plan’s recent guidance formalises the typology, signaling institutional recognition but also highlighting the need for policy alignment.

Sustainable Housing Implications

For a pan‑European audience focused on sustainability, the article provides several take‑aways:

• Shared facilities can reduce per‑capita resource consumption (energy, water, materials).
• High‑density models align with urban compactness goals, potentially lowering transport emissions.
• However, the reliance on luxury amenities and high turnover may undermine long‑term social sustainability and equity.
• The exclusionary nature of many co‑living schemes challenges the broader European agenda for inclusive, affordable, and sustainable housing.

Potential Paths Forward

The author suggests that municipal authorities could harness co‑living’s infrastructure to expand social housing, integrating communal services while preserving affordability. By embedding public‑service functions (childcare, healthcare, community spaces) within co‑living developments, cities might reconcile the efficiency of high‑density living with social equity goals.

Conclusion

“Domestic Realism or Something Worse?” provides a data‑rich examination of how commercial co‑living both challenges and reinforces existing housing paradigms in Europe. While offering innovative shared‑resource models that could support sustainability, the sector currently operates within a profit‑centric framework that limits accessibility and may exacerbate existing housing inequities. The piece calls for careful policy design to ensure that co‑living contributes positively to Europe’s sustainable housing objectives.