Resource context (publisher and author)
This article from Assemble Papers, written by Alexis Kalagas, examines how commercial “co‑living” and other rental innovations apply “as‑a‑service” thinking from the wider sharing/access economy to housing.
From products to subscriptions: why “as‑a‑service” reached housing
The piece argues that many sectors have shifted from ownership to subscription-like access, and positions housing within that trend. It cites WeWork’s rapid rise as a service-driven property intermediary: after starting in lower Manhattan, it is described as operating 425 locations across 27 countries and being a major tenant in both New York and London. The article characterises WeWork’s core approach as leasing space in bulk and subletting smaller units at a premium, while also using “space-as-a-service” tactics such as memberships, common areas, and community management.
What co‑living providers typically sell (beyond a room)
Co‑living is presented as a bundle of housing plus services: flexible leases, furnished units, event programming, digital portals, and flat-rate pricing that can include utilities, internet, cleaning, and rent. The article frames this as targeting “plug‑and‑play” lifestyles for mobile professionals, and as a hybrid drawing on co-housing ideas, serviced apartments, rooming houses, and short-stay accommodation models.
Three commercial co‑living models described
The article distinguishes three versions. First, “digital nomad” products such as Roam, which combine communal living with co‑working in places like Bali and Miami. Second, an institutionalised “share house” model such as LifeX, which the article describes as managing large apartments (around 300–350 m²) in European capitals (e.g., Berlin and Copenhagen) and converting them into curated flat shares for four to eight members. Third, building-scale operators such as Common and Starcity, which extend the model to whole mid‑ or high‑rise buildings (purpose-built or retrofitted) with branded amenities and management.
Amenities, micro‑units, and price signals
WeLive and The Collective are used as examples that mix co‑working access with hotel-like amenities (spas, gyms, concierge services, chef’s kitchens, bars and restaurants) while also targeting longer-term residents. The article notes typical lease lengths (e.g., 9–12 months at The Collective, with WeLive offering limited short stays up to 30 days). It highlights the private-space trade‑off, and gives a concrete cost example: The Collective Old Oak in northwest London repurposed an office block into 546 micro‑units; a 10 m² room is cited at about US$500 per week.
Critiques: community as marketing, privacy, and urban pressure
The article reports criticism that “community” can be used as a pretext to shrink private space and increase yields, commodifying shared lifestyles for an exclusive market. It also observes that these ventures cluster in high-demand cities such as Berlin, San Francisco, London, and New York—places where real estate pressures and well-paid mobile workers make experimentation more commercially viable.
Renting as a system: regulation and power imbalances
Using Australia as an example, the article contrasts long-standing cultural and policy support for homeownership with the later development of tenant protections. It notes that residential tenancies legislation arrived in Victoria in 1980 and describes earlier rental arrangements as shaped by common-law principles that assumed equal bargaining power. It also points to growth in the private rental sector between 2006 and 2016, stating it expanded at twice the rate of overall household growth and includes more diverse households (more couples, children, a wider income mix, and more long-term renters).
Future direction: professionalised, socially oriented renting at scale
The article concludes that co‑living is only one possible pathway toward “housing‑as‑a‑service” and says future models must balance mobility and agency, quality and affordability, and community and autonomy. It argues that innovation will need to combine spatial design, service design, and strategic design, and it introduces the “extended home” idea—sharing resources not just within buildings but at neighbourhood scale. As a contrasting large-scale reference, it points to Zürich, citing that 90% of residents are tenants and noting that non-profit housing cooperatives manage portfolios of more than 5,000 apartments, alongside experiments with shared amenities (e.g., yoga rooms, roof terraces, restaurants, and crèches) and more open, mixed-use design ambitions.