When I was younger and looking for any excuse to travel (I'm not sure this has changed), there were periods of time where I "lived" for weeks and months in hotels and in spaces that today we would characterize as co-living. I always liked the idea of living in a hotel. It was carefree. There were amenities. And you got to meet people from all around the world.

Well it turns out that these kinds of living arrangements aren't just attractive to poor university students. We have seen a proliferation of different living and hospitality concepts over the years, and I don't see this trend slowing down. A recent example, which I just learned about via Globetrender, is "the Other House". Their first location, pictured, above, is scheduled to open this spring in London's South Kensington.

The founder refers to it as a "residents' club", and the idea is for it to sit somewhere between a hotel, a serviced apartment, and your typical long-term apartment rental. Each "Club Flat" will have a separate living area and bedroom, as well as a kitchenette for cooking. And guests will be able to stay for as long as they would like -- anywhere from one night to more than a year.

Why this is potentially innovative is that the company is looking to combine the best of a few different worlds here. For example, hotels are great because they offer flexibility, amenities, and a carefree lifestyle, but they're often missing the sense of belonging/home that you get from more conventional longer-term housing.

The Other House hopes to fix this through what you might call the "hotelization" of residential real estate. They're investing in design and in creating the right experience, but they're also doing things like offering storage facilities for their residents. The idea here is that if you need to travel somewhere else for a few weeks, there's a place to store all of your personal belongings so that everything is waiting for you when you return "home."

Pricing is still TBD. But supposedly the average room rate is anticipated to be around £250 per night, with rates obviously coming down for longer stays. I am curious to see how this concept does in London. While it is not entirely novel, it is decidedly urban. It is an another example of design, location, and experience being privileged over raw square footage.

They don't have much up on their website just yet. But if you'd like to follow them on the socials, you can do that over here.

Image: The Other House

Earlier this week I wrote about the age groups that are most likely to live in an urban neighborhood in the United States. It was people in their 20s and, to a lesser extent, baby boomers. The data I was relying on used population density to measure urbanity.

Interestingly enough, the demand for co-living seems to mirror this. (Feel free to disagree.) From what I’ve been told, the fastest growing co-living segments are young people recently out of school and retirees. Intuitively this makes sense to me.

If we think back to teachings of Clayton Christensen (another recent post), we “hire” products and services because we have “jobs” that need to be done. In the case of a McDonald’s milkshake that job might be a breakfast that’s appropriate for a long and boring commute.

In the case of co-living, and in urban neighborhoods in general, one of those jobs has got to be social connections. (Again, feel free to disagree.) We do also know that single person households are increasing in many cities. Are these phenomenons related? How big could co-living get?

Note: This post was written on my phone on a flight, which is why there are no links or images.

Earlier this year, an 800 unit co-living project was approved in downtown San Jose. The developer is Starcity. And it is said to be the largest co-living project in the pipeline in the United States right now.

A few months later (presumably because of this project), San Jose also created a new "co-living" land-use classification. It is similarly thought to be a first for US cities.

I think it still remains to be seen how broad the market can be for co-living. Do older generations also want to go back to dorm-like living? Or is this a housing solution mainly for twenty-somethings?

At the same time, it's not an entirely new housing idea. I like the parallel that Sarah Holder of CityLab draws between today's co-living and yesterday's single room occupancy buildings (SROs).

There are, of course, many differences, including the amount of space dedicated to common areas (the community aspect). But in both cases, part of the value proposition is about affordability.

Where do you see co-living going?

When I was younger and looking for any excuse to travel (I'm not sure this has changed), there were periods of time where I "lived" for weeks and months in hotels and in spaces that today we would characterize as co-living. I always liked the idea of living in a hotel. It was carefree. There were amenities. And you got to meet people from all around the world.

Well it turns out that these kinds of living arrangements aren't just attractive to poor university students. We have seen a proliferation of different living and hospitality concepts over the years, and I don't see this trend slowing down. A recent example, which I just learned about via Globetrender, is "the Other House". Their first location, pictured, above, is scheduled to open this spring in London's South Kensington.

The founder refers to it as a "residents' club", and the idea is for it to sit somewhere between a hotel, a serviced apartment, and your typical long-term apartment rental. Each "Club Flat" will have a separate living area and bedroom, as well as a kitchenette for cooking. And guests will be able to stay for as long as they would like -- anywhere from one night to more than a year.

Why this is potentially innovative is that the company is looking to combine the best of a few different worlds here. For example, hotels are great because they offer flexibility, amenities, and a carefree lifestyle, but they're often missing the sense of belonging/home that you get from more conventional longer-term housing.

The Other House hopes to fix this through what you might call the "hotelization" of residential real estate. They're investing in design and in creating the right experience, but they're also doing things like offering storage facilities for their residents. The idea here is that if you need to travel somewhere else for a few weeks, there's a place to store all of your personal belongings so that everything is waiting for you when you return "home."

Pricing is still TBD. But supposedly the average room rate is anticipated to be around £250 per night, with rates obviously coming down for longer stays. I am curious to see how this concept does in London. While it is not entirely novel, it is decidedly urban. It is an another example of design, location, and experience being privileged over raw square footage.

They don't have much up on their website just yet. But if you'd like to follow them on the socials, you can do that over here.

Image: The Other House

Earlier this week I wrote about the age groups that are most likely to live in an urban neighborhood in the United States. It was people in their 20s and, to a lesser extent, baby boomers. The data I was relying on used population density to measure urbanity.

Interestingly enough, the demand for co-living seems to mirror this. (Feel free to disagree.) From what I’ve been told, the fastest growing co-living segments are young people recently out of school and retirees. Intuitively this makes sense to me.

If we think back to teachings of Clayton Christensen (another recent post), we “hire” products and services because we have “jobs” that need to be done. In the case of a McDonald’s milkshake that job might be a breakfast that’s appropriate for a long and boring commute.

In the case of co-living, and in urban neighborhoods in general, one of those jobs has got to be social connections. (Again, feel free to disagree.) We do also know that single person households are increasing in many cities. Are these phenomenons related? How big could co-living get?

Note: This post was written on my phone on a flight, which is why there are no links or images.

Earlier this year, an 800 unit co-living project was approved in downtown San Jose. The developer is Starcity. And it is said to be the largest co-living project in the pipeline in the United States right now.

A few months later (presumably because of this project), San Jose also created a new "co-living" land-use classification. It is similarly thought to be a first for US cities.

I think it still remains to be seen how broad the market can be for co-living. Do older generations also want to go back to dorm-like living? Or is this a housing solution mainly for twenty-somethings?

At the same time, it's not an entirely new housing idea. I like the parallel that Sarah Holder of CityLab draws between today's co-living and yesterday's single room occupancy buildings (SROs).

There are, of course, many differences, including the amount of space dedicated to common areas (the community aspect). But in both cases, part of the value proposition is about affordability.

Where do you see co-living going?