The Myth of Co-Living

Promises vs Reality

What Co-Living Is Supposed To Be (According to Policy)

Large-scale purpose-built shared living (LSPBSL), often marketed as co-living, is officially defined by the Greater London Authority under the London Plan as:👉 A housing model designed for community, flexibility, and modern urban living

Key features include:

• At least 50+ private rooms

• Large communal spaces (kitchens, lounges, work areas)

• Designed for single-person households

• Minimum stay of 3 months

Positioned as a transitional housing option

In theory, co-living is meant to:

• Reduce loneliness

• Offer flexibility

• Provide high-quality shared amenities

• Offset smaller private rooms with meaningful communal living
  
  

Buried in the official guidance is this:

❗ “It does not meet minimum housing standards and is not considered suitable for long-term living.”

Let that sink in. This isn’t an accident. It’s written into policy.

You'll often see co-living marketing phrases such as:

• “Vibrant community”

• “All-inclusive lifestyle”

• “Effortless living”

• “Built for connection”

Co-Living Marketing — Decoded

“Vibrant community”

Often means:

• A large number of people in one building

• No guarantee of real interaction

• Social events that few attend after the first week

Behind the listing:

Proximity doesn’t equal connection.

“All-inclusive lifestyle”

Often means:

• Bills bundled into a higher monthly rent

• Limited control over usage (heating, laundry, shared facilities)

• Paying for amenities you may rarely use

Behind the listing:

You’re not saving — it’s just pre-packaged spending.

“Effortless living”

Often means:

• Minimal responsibility… but also minimal control

• Standardised, one-size-fits-all living conditions

• Issues handled slowly — because you’re one of many

Behind the listing:

Convenience for them, not always for you.