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 by Tim White and David Madden. It explores the emerging trend of co-living within the context of changing housing ideologies, particularly in Europe and North America, where traditional owner-occupation is declining and private rented accommodation is increasing.

Co-living is defined as privately operated, for-profit multiple occupancy rental housing, characterized by small private units and communal spaces. The article identifies four key ideological elements that support the rise of co-living: corporate futurism, technocratic urbanism, market populism, and curated collectivism. These ideologies legitimize co-living within the broader housing system and promote its profitability.

Data indicates a significant increase in investment within the co-living sector, with global funding rising by over 210% annually since 2015, amounting to over $3.2 billion. By 2020, there were approximately 7,820 co-living beds in the US, with more than 54,000 in development. The industry is seen as one of the fastest-growing residential asset classes in Europe and the US, with a potential market value of $550 billion in the upcoming decade.

Despite its appeal, co-living faces challenges such as the enduring prestige of homeownership and the stigma associated with multiple-occupancy renting. The article argues that while co-living promotes itself as a solution to urban housing crises, it still perpetuates inequalities inherent in financialized urbanization.

The concept of housing ideology is central to the article, emphasizing how dominant ideas about housing are used to justify and maintain existing systems. Co-living advocates utilize various narratives to present their model as a progressive alternative, yet it often reinforces the status quo. The discourse surrounding co-living is imbued with themes of community, flexibility, and modernity.

Co-living is framed within a technocratic narrative that positions it as a sustainable solution to urban living challenges. Advocates claim that co-living can optimize urban spaces and reduce carbon footprints by promoting shared living environments. However, the reality often involves high-density, profit-driven models that may not contribute to genuine sustainability.

The article concludes that the ideology of co-living is not a true alternative to the financialized urban landscape; rather, it serves to sustain existing inequalities. The authors call for a critical examination of housing ideologies to promote genuinely democratic and sustainable residential alternatives. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for addressing the evolving challenges in housing today.