Co-Living vs Reality: The Affordability Barrier
Who is it actually for?
The Original Idea
Co-living — or large-scale shared living — was introduced as a flexible, accessible housing option.
According to the Greater London Authority, under the London Plan, it is intended for:
People who cannot or choose not to access traditional housing
Individuals needing transitional accommodation
A more flexible alternative to standard renting
The Reality on the Ground
In practice, many co-living operators — including developments marketed under names like Live Union, also known as U+Union — are applying the same (or stricter) barriers as traditional landlords.
What Applicants Are Being Told
Typical requirements include:
Minimum income thresholds (often around £30,000–£36,000+)
Proof of stable employment (often several months minimum)
UK-based guarantor if you don’t meet the criteria
Or 6 months’ rent upfront if you cannot provide one
This kind of co-living is not a transitional housing option nor an option to traditional renting
What Co-Living Has Become
In practice, this version of co-living is:
Not transitional
Not more accessible
Not an alternative to traditional renting
Because:
It applies the same (or stricter) affordability checks
It requires UK guarantors or significant upfront payments
It targets people who are already financially stable — and already established in the UK.
The Core Reality
If you:
Earn £30,000–£36,000+
Have been in stable employment for longer than 6 months
Can provide a guarantor or upfront rent
Then you are already within reach of traditional renting criteria
So co-living, in this form, is not solving a gap—it is operating within the same system.
What That Means
This shifts co-living from:
A housing solution to a housing product
One that:
Looks different
Sounds different
But filters people in exactly the same way
Co-Living Spaces in LONDON
Some Co-Living in London: Who Offers What?
Folk Co-living https://www.folkcoliving.com 📍Location: Harrow, Battersea, Earlsfield. $ Price: ~£1,200 – £1,800 pcm
The studios are compact, but this is clearly intentional. The building is designed so residents can spend most of their day outside their private space, using the extensive communal areas.In reality: private space is limited, but the shared infrastructure is strong enough to compensate — making co-living feel more seamless than in many other developments. Gravity Co-living https://www.gravitycoliving.com 📍Locations: Multiple across London $ Price: ~~£900 – £1,800 pcm
Gravity promotes a “community-first” approach, targeting urban professionals, students, and those relocating to a new city. It offers flexible, furnished shared living with a social focus. This is a modernised house share (HMO) with branding — structured, managed, and marketed as a lifestyle product.
Community-first in language — house share in practice.ARK Co-living https://www.arkcoliving.com 📍Locations: Wembley, Canary Wharf $ Price: ~~£1,300 – £2,000 pcm
ARK is not the same company as the original The Collective, but it now operates several of its former flagship properties following a rebrand. Marketed as contemporary co-living, it offers studio-style rooms, flexible stays, and high-end shared amenities.In reality: rental prices often match those of full flats on the market, but with significantly less private space — offset by larger communal areas, gyms, and shared facilities.Vonder https://www.vondereurope.com 📍Locations: Wembley, Chelsea, others $ Price: ~~£1,400 – £2,200 pcm
Operating across cities such as London, Berlin, Munich, and Warsaw, Vonder was initially kown for flexible, furnished co-living aimed at young professionals and digital nomads relocating to new countries. In reality: the model appears to have shifted towards longer-term renting, with many locations now favouring 12-month tenancies over short stays. For shorter stays, the company has introduced a separate hotel-style offering in London (e.g. Earls Court, Paddington), targeting tourists and temporary workers. This creates a split model: long-term furnished renting on one side, short-term hospitality on the other — with less flexibility in between.Node Living https://www.nodeliving.com 📍Locations: Islington $ Price: ~~£1,800 – £2,800 pcm
Premium furnished apartments with strong design appeal. The company positions itself as a high-end, curated living experience — a hybrid between co-living and fully private, furnished apartments. In reality: this is high-end renting with lifestyle branding, rather than true co-living — with pricing that reflects exclusivity rather than accessibility.Cohabs https://cohabs.com 📍Locations: Elephant & Castle $ Price: ~~£1,000 – £1,500 pcm
Experiences of co-living can vary significantly depending on location and environment. In developments such as &Soul in Southall, the strong emphasis on wellbeing and curated community may appeal to some residents, while others may find it less aligned with their expectations of independent urban living. The location offers good access to Heathrow Airport, though it is somewhat removed from central London. The building’s previous use as the Hyatt Place West London Hayes also reflects a broader trend of repurposing hospitality spaces into co-living environments.&Soul https://andsoul.com 📍Locations: Shoreditch, Southhall $ Price: ~~~£1,300 – £1,900 pcm
Experiences of co-living can vary significantly depending on location and environment. In developments such as &Soul in Southall, the strong emphasis on wellbeing and curated community may appeal to some residents, while others may find it less aligned with their expectations of independent urban living. The location offers good access to Heathrow Airport, though it is somewhat removed from central London. The building’s previous use as the Hyatt Place West London Hayes also reflects a broader trend of repurposing hospitality spaces into co-living environments.The Collective Old Oak https://www.thecollective.com 📍Locations: Old Oak / North Acton area $ Price: ~~£1,150 – £1,700 pcm
Strong amenities, but the room itself is barely liveable — more for sleeping than living. Shared spaces, thin walls, and limited privacy turn “co-living” into high-density living with better branding. To its credit, The Collective Old Oak applies a more proportionate entry threshold. At a monthly rent of £1,150 pcm, the required income of roughly £25,000 per year, alongside standard conditions such as single occupancy and no pets, is relatively reasonable. Unlike other co-living providers, it does not appear to rely as heavily on guarantors or excessive upfront payments. In that sense, access is less restricted — even if the living space itself remains limited.
The entry is fair—the space is the compromise.
Behind the listings, co-living presents itself as a modern, flexible solution to urban living, but the reality is far more complex. Across different providers, the model consistently involves a trade-off: reduced private space in exchange for shared amenities, lifestyle branding, and curated community experiences. While some developments offer well-designed communal areas that partially offset smaller living spaces, many operate at price points comparable to full flats, without providing the same level of privacy or independence. At the same time, access is often restricted through income thresholds, guarantor requirements, or upfront payments, meaning that those who are most in need of flexible housing are frequently excluded. In essence, co-living does not fundamentally change the housing system—it repackages it, shifting the balance between space, cost, and access while maintaining the same underlying barriers.
Co-Living Doesn’t Change the System — It Changes the Appearance
So What Needs to Change?
Co-living does not solve the housing crisis. It repackages it. There needs to be accountability for Policy and Planning. The government must be held accountable for allowing the development of sub-18 sqm units and housing models that do not meet long-term living standards. At the same time, co-living operators should not be able to function like private landlords while benefiting from being classified as “temporary” or “flexible” housing.
Clear Regulation of Co-Living Practices
There is a clear need for stronger oversight of internal policies (income thresholds, guarantor demands, and upfront payments). Fair access standards that reflect the intended purpose of co-living must be employed, especially where developments have received public funding or planning advantages.
Clearer Housing Categories
The current system blurs key distinctions. There must be a clearer separation between: student accommodation, co-living, HMOs and traditional rentals. Each should be advertised transparently and regulated according to its actual use and target groups. Big portals like Zoopla and Rightmove should have categories for each type of accommodation, thereby offering greater transparency for those searching.
Addressing Market Imbalance
The current market creates unintended competition between students (often international), young professionals and local workers, all competing for the same limited housing supply.
Tackling Underused Housing
Developers, landlords, and corporate property owners should not be allowed to leave properties vacant or delay occupation for financial gain. The responsibility must shift: If you own housing, it should be used. This could include penalties for long-term vacancy and incentives for active occupation.
Like the Canadian model, it is worth considering banning non-British from purchasing residential property, aimed at preventing foreign investors from buying homes and leaving them empty, as is often the case in London. This ban should apply specifically to cities like London to improve affordability. Additionally, cities like London should impose local empty-home taxes on unoccupied properties.
Co-living Isn’t The Problem Per Se
The problem is a system that allows reduced standards, rebranded housing models, and restricted access — all at the same time. The current system doesn’t change how people live —it changes what they’re expected to accept. At the same time, the system is unintentionally creating a form of housing hierarchy. Students may access high-end student accommodation, co-living, or private rentals; young professionals are channelled into co-living or shared arrangements; and higher earners can choose premium co-living or expensive private flats. Meanwhile, entry-level workers and lower-income earners are often left with poor-quality flats, HMOs, or unstable arrangements such as sofa surfing. And finally, those reliant on housing support or Universal Credit frequently face discrimination and are excluded from large parts of the housing market, leaving them with limited access to adequate housing standards and, in many cases, forcing them into lower-quality or unstable living arrangements—often while paying the same, or even comparable, rental prices as others.
Useful Links:
“Co-living is purely a new way for developers to squeeze profit from an already broken housing market,” — Hannah Wheatley, researcher on housing and land at the New Economics Foundation.
