The Thinkhouse Review: is co-living a housing solution for vulnerable older people?

Namely: co-housing communities that were either intergenerational or older people only, home share schemes in which an older person’s spare room was used by a younger person in exchange for support, and ‘link ages’ schemes that house older people with PhD students who provide support and companionship in exchange for cheaper rents.

The research explores the benefits, obstacles and regulatory frameworks which surround these models, and explores the role that various stakeholders, such as local authorities and housing associations, play in the development of co-living.

The research finds that the main benefits of co-living models are that older people make active choices about their later life, it provides them with support and companionship, and helps them to feel less lonely.

By enabling older people to stay in their own home through intergenerational one-to-one support or through joining a co-housing group, co-living may delay the need for further care – therefore bring benefits for families, social services and local authorities.

However, establishing co-living schemes is often costly and resource intensive. The report identified the need for extensive input of time and resources to establish and manage schemes – access to land and finance – but also general awareness and acceptance of sharing one’s living space in later life.

“By enabling older people to stay in their own home through intergenerational one-to-one support or through joining a co-housing group, co-living may delay the need for further care”

The role that local authorities and housing associations can have in developing co-living and the steps that can be taken to reduce the barriers to developing this form of intergeneration living is set out in seven policy recommendations covering increasing awareness, funding, guidance and support.

There should also be better consideration of land that has potential for co-housing development, in line with the “preferential access to land” systems used in other European countries and specific planning considerations which allow more time for co-housing groups to purchase sites instead of competing in the open market against private developers.

“Cambridge Center for Housing and Planning Research has produced an analysis that effectively explains that co-housing can be one of the answers to the housing and social care crisis”

I would have liked more analysis of co-living as well as co-housing models. In particular, intergenerational schemes, such a siting a nursery within a retirement home or village.

Recent fly-on-the-wall documentaries have shown how pairing residents with preschool children can have real benefits at both ends of the age spectrum.

While such schemes need careful management, they probably face lower legal and structural barriers than co-housing models. Despite this gap, Cambridge Center for Housing and Planning Research has produced an analysis that effectively explains that co-housing can be one of the answers to the housing and social care crisis. A must read for anyone with an interest in this subject.

Richard Hyde, chair, editorial panel, Thinkhouse