Housing ideology and urban residential change: The rise of co-living in the financialized city

The article titled “Housing ideology and urban residential change: The rise of co-living in the financialized city” is published in Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, a respected journal that focuses on the intersections of environmental and economic planning. The authors, Tim White and David Madden, explore the evolving housing landscape, specifically the co-living model, which has gained traction in urban areas under financialized capitalism.

Co-living is characterized as for-profit, multiple occupancy rental housing that combines small private units with communal spaces and services. This model is increasingly prominent among young, middle-class professionals in major cities across Europe and North America. The authors identify four ideological elements that underpin the rise of co-living: corporate futurism, technocratic urbanism, market populism, and curated collectivism. These elements help legitimize co-living as a viable housing option within the existing system, despite its financialization.

The trend towards co-living reflects a broader shift in housing dynamics, particularly as owner-occupation rates decline while private rental accommodation rises. The article notes that the financialization of housing has led to the commodification of living spaces, with co-living emerging as a lucrative sector attracting substantial investment. In 2019, global funding for co-living surged by over 210% annually, reaching $3.2 billion, with estimates suggesting that co-living beds in the US alone numbered around 7,820, with more than 54,000 units planned.

The authors argue that co-living does not fundamentally challenge the financialized housing system but rather reinforces it. The ideology of co-living promotes a vision of urban living that emphasizes flexibility and community, appealing to a generation facing housing precarity. However, this narrative obscures the underlying realities of financialization and the challenges associated with multiple-occupancy rentals.

Despite presenting itself as a solution to urban housing issues, co-living faces significant challenges, including the stigma associated with multiple-occupancy housing. The authors highlight that co-living does not dismantle the ideology of homeownership but instead offers an alternative that still aligns with the interests of affluent investors. The critique extends to the industry's marketing strategies that position co-living as a communal and democratic solution, while in reality, it often caters to a privileged demographic.

In conclusion, the article emphasizes the importance of understanding housing ideologies in the context of residential change. It discusses how the narratives surrounding co-living reflect broader societal trends and economic realities within the housing sector. The authors contend that while co-living might appear as a progressive development, it ultimately serves to perpetuate existing inequalities within the urban housing landscape, necessitating a critical examination of its implications for sustainable housing practices in Europe.