Why Some Houses Work for Coliving and Others Don’t

Why Some Houses Work for Coliving and Others Don’t

Investor · Houston · Member since 2022 · 56 posts · 27 votes

Why Some Houses Work for Coliving and Others Don’t

After running a coliving-style shared housing property for several years, one of the biggest lessons I learned is that not every house works well for this model.

When people first hear about room-by-room rentals, the conversation usually focuses on the income potential. But in my experience the property itself plays a huge role in whether the operation runs smoothly or becomes very management heavy.

After a few years of trial and error I started evaluating potential opportunities using what I think of as an “anchor” approach.

Instead of looking only at the house, I evaluate four layers:

• The city itself

• The specific locality within the city

• The neighborhood dynamics

• The physical layout of the house

When those four anchors line up, the model tends to run much more smoothly. Tenant turnover stays manageable, the house culture stabilizes, and the operational headaches drop dramatically.

When even one of those layers is off, the property can become much harder to operate consistently.

A layout issue, parking limitation, or neighborhood mismatch can quickly create friction between housemates.

Curious if others here running room-by-room rentals or shared housing have noticed the same thing.

Have you found that certain types of houses or locations work much better for this model?

1Reply
105 views

4 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Victor SoBusiness Member
    Real Estate Agent · Chicago, IL · Member since 2017 · 325 posts · 193 votes
    6mo
    Quote from @Robert J. Rhodes:

    Why Some Houses Work for Coliving and Others Don’t

    After running a coliving-style shared housing property for several years, one of the biggest lessons I learned is that not every house works well for this model.

    When people first hear about room-by-room rentals, the conversation usually focuses on the income potential. But in my experience the property itself plays a huge role in whether the operation runs smoothly or becomes very management heavy.

    After a few years of trial and error I started evaluating potential opportunities using what I think of as an “anchor” approach.

    Instead of looking only at the house, I evaluate four layers:

    • The city itself

    • The specific locality within the city

    • The neighborhood dynamics

    • The physical layout of the house

    When those four anchors line up, the model tends to run much more smoothly. Tenant turnover stays manageable, the house culture stabilizes, and the operational headaches drop dramatically.

    When even one of those layers is off, the property can become much harder to operate consistently.

    A layout issue, parking limitation, or neighborhood mismatch can quickly create friction between housemates.

    Curious if others here running room-by-room rentals or shared housing have noticed the same thing.

    Have you found that certain types of houses or locations work much better for this model?

    I have 5 properties where I do rent by room/co-living stuff on the north/northwest side of Chicago and suburbs. I agree with everything you said. One thing I’ve noticed in Chicago (and suburbs) is that the city is much more open to the co-living model mainly because housing affordability is an issue. For example, Evanston (where Northwestern University is located) used to enforce maximum occupancy limits in order to regulate frat houses, etc. However, I spoke to the community development director and they’re getting rid of those limits simply to encourage the co-living model and help address the housing affordability issue. With regards to neighbors, it’s true that some are against it but I’ve noticed that as long as I’m communicating my intents for the property and I assure them that the tenants won’t cause disturbances and the property will be taken care of, they are appeased. But I do tell my clients to be wary of neighborhoods with predominantly single family homes or within gated communities. The neighbors seem to be more particular in those areas. I’ve found that if a street has a good mix of single family and multi-unit properties, people usually don’t care since tenants make up the bulk of the neighborhood. Also, interestingly, I’ve noticed that co-living works well buildings on big streets for various reasons (ie. Lots of street parking, neighbors are used to noise and folks passing through, etc) 
    Victor So Real Estate LLC517 Reviews
  • Investor · Houston · Member since 2022 · 56 posts · 27 votes
    6mo

    Victor, this is a great add, especially the point about mixed-density neighborhoods and larger streets. That aligns closely with what I’ve seen as well.

    The regulatory shift you mentioned is interesting too. It feels like some markets are starting to recognize coliving as part of the affordability solution rather than something to restrict.

    Your point on neighbor communication is a big one. In my experience, setting expectations early and maintaining the property well tends to remove most of the friction before it starts.

    What you said about location dynamics actually fits well into how I’ve been thinking about this in layers. The house matters, but the surrounding environment and how people are used to density, traffic, and turnover can make or break the experience.

    Have you noticed any difference in performance or management intensity between your city properties and suburban ones, or do they behave pretty similarly once stabilized?

    • Victor SoBusiness Member
      Real Estate Agent · Chicago, IL · Member since 2017 · 325 posts · 193 votes
      6mo
      Quote from @Robert J. Rhodes:

      Victor, this is a great add, especially the point about mixed-density neighborhoods and larger streets. That aligns closely with what I’ve seen as well.

      The regulatory shift you mentioned is interesting too. It feels like some markets are starting to recognize coliving as part of the affordability solution rather than something to restrict.

      Your point on neighbor communication is a big one. In my experience, setting expectations early and maintaining the property well tends to remove most of the friction before it starts.

      What you said about location dynamics actually fits well into how I’ve been thinking about this in layers. The house matters, but the surrounding environment and how people are used to density, traffic, and turnover can make or break the experience.

      Have you noticed any difference in performance or management intensity between your city properties and suburban ones, or do they behave pretty similarly once stabilized?

      For me, they’re pretty similar. But, it’s because I know what the areas have to offer.  Even though it’s the suburbs, I still try to buy in areas where there’s public transportation, close to major expressways, close to the airport, close to hospitals (ie. To attract travel nurses, interns, etc). That said, there are many parts of the suburbs where co-living tenants might not want to be in so I think it’s just a matter of understanding your market. 
      Victor So Real Estate LLC517 Reviews
    • Investor · Houston · Member since 2022 · 56 posts · 27 votes
      6mo
      Quote from @Victor So:
      Quote from @Robert J. Rhodes:

      Victor, this is a great add, especially the point about mixed-density neighborhoods and larger streets. That aligns closely with what I’ve seen as well.

      The regulatory shift you mentioned is interesting too. It feels like some markets are starting to recognize coliving as part of the affordability solution rather than something to restrict.

      Your point on neighbor communication is a big one. In my experience, setting expectations early and maintaining the property well tends to remove most of the friction before it starts.

      What you said about location dynamics actually fits well into how I’ve been thinking about this in layers. The house matters, but the surrounding environment and how people are used to density, traffic, and turnover can make or break the experience.

      Have you noticed any difference in performance or management intensity between your city properties and suburban ones, or do they behave pretty similarly once stabilized?

      For me, they’re pretty similar. But, it’s because I know what the areas have to offer.  Even though it’s the suburbs, I still try to buy in areas where there’s public transportation, close to major expressways, close to the airport, close to hospitals (ie. To attract travel nurses, interns, etc). That said, there are many parts of the suburbs where co-living tenants might not want to be in so I think it’s just a matter of understanding your market. 

      @Victor So

      That makes a lot of sense, especially the focus on proximity to transit, hospitals, and major corridors. I’ve seen the same thing. The demand side ends up being just as important as the physical layout.

      One thing I’ve noticed is that once those location anchors are in place, the tenant profile tends to stabilize on its own. Travel nurses, interns, trades like journeymen electricians, students, and even some international houseguests all tend to align better with the shared environment compared to more random demand.

      It almost becomes less about “finding tenants” and more about making sure the property is positioned where the right tenants are already looking.

      Appreciate you sharing that. That’s a helpful real-world confirmation.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.