Some thoughts on purposeful space planning amongst coliving classes
By: Jacob Jay
Tags: Coworking, Guest Experience, Space Planning, Interior Architecture, Coliving

The takeaways

Workspace facilities are often not fit for focussed work, lacking desks of the correct height and adjustable chairs, instead making do with arrangements only befitting ad-hoc work such as coffee bars and dining tables. Functional workspaces are now integral to living space needs .

work, lacking desks of the correct height and adjustable chairs, instead making do with arrangements only befitting ad-hoc work such as coffee bars and dining tables. Functional . Instead of covering just one or two workspace scenarios as polar opposites (lively common / focussed private) consider intermediate variations such as a focussed yet casual environment (quiet yet amongst others).

Microunits can gain significantly improved value and facilities under purpose-suited buildout requirements that creatively go beyond norms, notably employing increased storey height for mezzanines.

for mezzanines. The placement of modal spaces needs to consider community and use flows/movements so as not to impinge individual uses, whilst also engaging uses toward community benefits.

We can’t assume that user research will identify issues and improvements, as they themselves may not know what is optimal or required for beneficial experiences. Best practices may exist, or may need creating.

Almost any building can be well planned for use, including repurposing—the limiting factor is predominantly regulations.

Some scope on classes

I was recently pinged with an interesting variation on a murphy bed, by Ben of Muse Society who’d reached out whilst planning the development of a retreat/workation oriented space. That model is what some of us in the sector call destinational coliving (think Outsite / Sun and Co. i.e. stays of a couple weeks to a couple of months), distinguishing it from residential coliving (think The Collective / Common i.e. long-term). Both span sizes from homes with a few rooms up to overwhelming complexes.

I’m not going to touch on layouts in residential coliving homes as there’s nothing particularly distinctive about their format and use, just the philosophy (community!). [See my what is coliving for elaboration.]

These two are joined by a third class, hybrid coliving which is burgeoning as marketing departments start to throw coliving onto the end of whatever real-estate venture they represent, thus is rather hard to pin down, mainly representing adaptations upon existing models. I won’t go into that here, suffice to say that common facilities tend towards an extension of lobby-like facilities (passing through), rather than those for living (settling within).

Of hybrid operators, Zoku was conceived as coliving targeting extended business trips (up to a few months), and defines its private studios as the main workspace. Cowool is similar, yet adds offices also addressing its local market. Selina is a hostel (with ensuite rooms), some locations having proper coworking. Then there’s student residences and umpteen other variations.

An exclusion worth mentioning is hotels, and I sincerely object when they attempt to position themselves as coliving, especially promoters such as colivinghotels.com. The offering is merely a hotel room — for a longer use than designed! This said hotels are prime candidates for repurposing as coliving, but it takes more than a monthly rate. Significantly they lack an open kitchen to meet this fundamental requirement of living rather than only visiting (i.e. eating out). Aparthotels can be considered as hybrid coliving where they provide other common facilities (not just a lobby!).

The purpose of spaces

Psychologically, distinct spaces reenforce the value of their uses, driving engagement within, and giving choice to users, especially when spending significant time working from home! Simplistically you can break uses up into sleep / work / play; but for effective purpose, we must overlay moods e.g. quiet-focus / casual–relaxed / lively-playful whence we can then anticipate contention should they overlap. This is inevitable without scale (in homes) but usually easily worked around due to so few actors, but as scale increases and providing greater common spaces, the more significant the proposition becomes to guests and residents. However scale (epitomised by uniformity) is also destructive and thus can work against coliving purpose beyond a point.

There’s a ton of supplementary uses such as cook–eat / call–meeting / party-games, however these are ephemeral, occurring between and around the primary uses and may be considered transitionary. Contention in spaces for these uses won’t be a significant issue and they can be serviced without requiring dedicated allocations, else supported using adaptable spaces and multiple methods (e.g. nominal kitchenette but a significant common kitchen; no common callrooms, but a private desk).

It’s important to understand that the fundamental principle of coliving is that one doesn’t use private space for all purposes (nor moods), and would in many cases rather use common facilities. In coliving buildouts one therefore invests in the core common spaces, covering use exceptions in private space.

Being clever with a unit’s design to the end of covering all uses within a limited space, is not necessary. This does depend upon a space’s philosophy and purpose — in a less connected (less community-oriented) hybrid space, having a capable multi-use private place is essential, and at scale may even only be effectively delivered using clever design.

However spaces that only implement common facilities to a limited extent (just a workspace, or just a lounge) may not properly qualify as coliving and could only be considered hybrid, because the format is only partly employed and does not comprehensively support coliving’s purpose. It’s not coliving if you add a space that gets used only occasionally by groups nor spaces that are only used individually. With coliving, common spaces are used together as a routine behaviour.

In better connected spaces (more community-oriented), one actually wants to encourage (but not force) people away from private spaces. This is notable in homes and destinational spaces, only providing a great bed, an adequate desk (optionally), and sometimes an ensuite bathroom (despite significant demand, as they’re tricky at small scale). Other uses being exclusively shared in common areas—alongside serendipitous connections. Residential complexes only compromise private space as far as their segment can sustain in terms of pricing and desirability.

At scale, any guest or resident specifically desiring more independence can be accommodated and included with a different class of accommodation such as studio units, but as a predominant class they change the corresponding common uses which may thus leave the coliving purpose behind.

If coliving at scale is to succeed, and if/as awareness in coliving’s purpose grows, propositions from operators will have to deliver broader implementations of the format beyond simply offering a common space for each primary use, but to have multiple such spaces accommodating differing moods, and even social groups.

Of behaviours in space

One likely doesn’t want to provide an offering that only appeals to a single personality type. So whilst one should consider the opposites of introvert and extrovert—we realise people are actually somewhat adaptable.

In destinational spaces, guests regardless of personality are fundamentally willing to give up personal needs (and space) in order to gain community benefits, afterall it’s not for long. For residential this is not the case.

In addition to uses, we need the adequate coverage (as distinct spaces) for people’s preferred moods (to avoid contention). An extrovert won’t have much appreciation of an isolated studio desk, whilst a common focus workspace would suit, to which an introvert can also adapt, whilst a casual workspace would be harder for the introvert but desirable to the extrovert. Without scale, providing for all is both excessively costly, and diminishes community from segmentation.

Circulation is also important, for the organic (unfacilitated) functioning of community, the larger the space and the longer the stays, the more important that transitions between spaces don’t have ‘hard edges’. We don’t want to force guests and residents into or between them, but nor should they be isolated.

Whilst placing access to private units directly from a common space could increase interaction, it also creates a significantly contrasting space of activity directly adjacent, leading to feelings of being forced into interactions when undesired, and even loss of security. But conversely if spaces are unduly isolated some people may never use them and others may hog them, a classic example of this is an over reliance on hallways.

Spaces ideally need transition between, with intermediate state to avoid sudden juxtaposition. Using persuasive design to draw the community together. Such as by providing access to private units, skirting common areas but remaining partially exposed. The middle-path is the virtuous path. 😉

An example of lacking transition can be found in student residences, where you’ve got a couple of very large common spaces such as cafeteria and movie/events room, then lots of (minimal) private units down featureless halls, thus no opportunity in between highly contrasting uses. This is what coliving must solve to be sustainable. Students are however quite adaptable and price conscious, plus their use term is limited, thus the format is adequate, yet we’re now starting to see elements of coliving being used in these as a hybrid format to improve their proposition.

Large units >45m²

Let’s be clear, this is frankly the kind of size that doesn’t need much clever design, rather an assiduous layout permitting flow and uninterrupted modal uses. Unless the exception to most units in a development, it is also rather likely to work against coliving principles.

A complex that is mostly private simply is not coliving unless it counters the stronger private uses with great community programming (facilitation), drawing residents to common spaces regularly. Such interaction must thus be a default for it to function as coliving, and its design must support this.

Whilst this type is not of particular interest when predominant, a small proportion captures a slightly wider market, improving returns, and indeed a variety of classes has benefits for community diversity too.

Mid units ~35m²

This shows a murphy bed variation, in a studio designed with movable components such that space use can be changed, though requiring adequate floorspace to do so. It partly provides for distinct work space, if not quite between sleep and play (because of identical placement). The bed raises to the ceiling so as to hide away (which obviously requires sufficient storey height) changing the use, revealing/hiding a sofa and small lounge underneath. Not particularly elegant due to the fact that the design plays tricks on you to achieve the result.

The control mechanism for raising and lowering a bed would have to be carefully considered as the last thing one wants is to have to call a technician in order to get to bed because it’s broken… one must consider the sustainability of design! In this example the bed itself is also higher than usual which might affect usability, e.g. stumbling out of bed in the middle of the night to take a leak. Such details might be negated with a more refined design.

Personally I don’t think such beds are great, yet convertible designs are suited to residential coliving at scale, due stronger need to cover multiple uses, with residents being more likely to desire private space without being cramped.

This size, irrespective of design, probably represents the largest market segment as it maintains the old-world order of independence, if slightly watered down to introduce some common space and better returns.

Micro units <25m²

These are really too small for clever solutions like moveable components given such limited floorspace, so you have to jam everything in and can only really change the order and stacking. The Collective’s units at 12–14m2 are pushing the limits. Yet the same floor space with some extra height is vastly improved!

Thus I personally favour mezzanine beds, which whilst requiring greater storey height than might get away with otherwise, they give good space for a bathroom and dressing area plus a desk entirely separate from the sleeping area by virtue of being two levels. If required one can relax on the bed with a bit of a view, but it’s not so great that one wouldn’t prefer to use a common lounge or workspace.

Mezzanine coliving unit concept, Jacob Jay.

This is a quick render I did of such a mezzanine unit, from testing concepts to maximise space use into a roof, but it functions equally with multistorey slabs. Here 2.5m wide and 5m deep having a 12.5m² footprint, yet giving 20m² usable. One can additionally extend the mezzanine over a hallway for a small boost to usable area, albeit making material allowances (carpets and acoustic isolation) as a hall and sleeping area do not otherwise mix well!

Because the usual placement of the bed is no longer in front of the window and exterior wall, you also gain the ability to add a juliet balcony to increase the unit value, or reduce the window to 1m to decrease its value. In any case a window of up to 3.5m height is quite unique. Its position maximises use of external walls, which have significant value as units traditionally use up a lot of breadth to gain access to light. In a configuration like this you can drop the width as narrow as 2m, using a slab-to-slab almost on par with typical commercial buildings (potentially permitting retrofits), or ~1m higher than residential (permitting retrofits where attic space can be gained). You needn’t even have a window, as a skylight works (for destinational, if not residential) thus enabling use of mid-building footprint.

In a new build you can also go much deeper for a microstudio, adding a seating area and kitchenette, yet still feeling spacious and well lit along its length despite being narrow.

Mezzanine units can have a footprint as small as 8m², whilst still providing an ensuite and desk (at least for taking video calls). Though movement is decidedly limited and the mezzanine is sized to the mattress. Nonetheless it demonstrates potential efficiencies which may suit certain models, though I’d not advise going this far except for extremely cost constrained locations, and budget destinational.

Incidentally in my mockup the bathroom uses a sliding door as swing doors in a narrow setting feel like traps, whilst sliding enables the bathroom space to be more open and connect into the adjacent area as a dressing ‘room’.

A mezzanine plays to coliving perfectly, and I see the philosophical future being these micro units, going down a path employing specific changes away from construction and fitout norms, to utilise bespoke design like this. In the much longer term this would become a norm, across all coliving classes. 👍

Do spare a thought on usability and operations, such as for housekeeping. You want ease of access to change sheets, even clean around toilets. A mezzanine, platform or recessed bed with no surrounding space is the worst case, thus a 2.5m width is preferable but 25% is a significant price to pay just to be able to change sheets if you can offer a unit that’s only 2m. Yet a proposition for a base unit need not include full housekeeping, significantly reducing operations, in favour of common laundry facilities under the member’s own responsibility, neatly playing into user ownership and coliving values. 😄

Designing for purpose

The cost of developing a moveable or changeable fitout that works well is perhaps not favourable versus simpler units with a little more investment in common spaces (except higher in the market or for broader appeal). In time components will become available ready to drop into a suitable build. Right now it’s an R&D overhead and risk.

Zoku “loft” and “work table“.

Zoku’s units went through extensive R&D and are a great demonstration of how business needs and guest experience were addressed together, though do have drawbacks in any other scenario than as envisaged. At 25m², most being open living space, they’re really quite generous. (There’s also an XL version.)

The sleeping platform is akin to a mezzanine, though cannot be stood up within nor around, requiring an ungainly shuffle to exit and enter, so more of an oversized capsule (“nest”), yet enabling greatly significant space use for independent private uses other than simply sleep. Common spaces in this hybrid scenario are really a bonus and is where using Zoku as a coliving example somewhat comes apart.

Interview with Veerle Donders, Concept and Brand Director at Zoku; from New Workspaces, Culture & People.

This interview touches on some truly valuable facets for coliving… Staff integration (visibility and participation) is demonstrated at its height by destinational spaces, where the operator is often the person whom greets you and looks after community facilitation (and why I object to any space claiming to be [destinational] coliving when if just a slightly improved guesthouse and lacking this). User ownership means that as a guest or resident, one feels able to participate in all matters, Veerle mentioned members picking up other people’s empty glasses to ‘tidy up’ their space. Zoku also encourage guests to rearrange wall art and actually use everything one sees on shelves, rather than such things just being posed to look nice.

Amusingly Zoku pitches the workspace as the dining table, a pet-peeve of mine (in fact a pain in my butt and crook in my neck) as dining tables/chairs are simply not ergonomic for work unless you hunch over like a digital nomad at a cafe. They actually say their dining table is a “work table” with a “comfortable chair”…

But just look at the photo. The poor woman is posed, as familiar to many now, curling her arm and fingers around the edge of the table in the least ergonomic position ever. Experienced nomads use a suitably raised laptop stand, and separate input (keyboard and trackpad) but this still doesn’t resolve arm ergonomics. Maybe you think that what’s sometimes only a 2.5cm difference couldn’t be an issue, but it is. Easily resolved with an adjustable height desk chair, yet which would look utterly out of place in any promotional material for such a living space. There are other more creative, ergonomic and aesthetic solutions that need to be pursued to make such spaces better support their cited purpose.

Zoku do have what I term simply common workspaces, that is you work in spaces that are multipurpose thus are (also!) not purpose designed for a specific (most productive) use. Yielding two spaces (private and common) neither of which are properly supportive of work.

It is indeed better to encourage people out of the private spaces for work, versus personal time. But they’ve fallen for the trap of looking cool, rather than being functional. I’ve not visited, but based on the fact there isn’t a single proper workspace I probably wouldn’t — it seems intentionally designed not to permit work in the sense that I normally take for granted. Maybe I’ve missed a trick and nowadays nobody does proper work anymore? This perhaps instead reveals that given an advancing age bracket I’m less accommodating of working ‘anywhere’ than vast swathes of (wannabe) digital nomads.😅

I sincerely object to a space being called “coworking” when more akin to breakout or lobby space. A common fault nowadays in hybrid spaces, if usually those trying to adapt rather than having been intentionally designed and fitout as Zoku is. I don’t want to mis-categorise them, as they’ve done a fantastic job identifying a segment of the market they can serve with a novel offering that’s had great thought put into. If perhaps not enough — “all the office amenities you could need”, except the office (desk and chair). If you’re mostly visiting your corporate HQ and doing meetings it’s lovely. For a longer stay and doing focussed work, not really.

Ironically their booths in the coworking space appear to have better ergonomics, but given as these are really multi-person you don’t want individuals occupying them and would thus want to use design that works for team meetings but discourages longer use. I may be underestimating millennial abilities to work in uncomfortable positions on that front.

Zoku thus match a very specific segment, and as such you can’t draw too much from the details of their design and space planning, but certainly can from their philosophy and how they approached it.

…it’s a wrap

If my rambling leaves you wondering how spaces might look in an ideal, scaled development, I like to see the following moods covered for both lounges and workspaces:

lively (gatherings with music/TV/activities)

(gatherings with music/TV/activities) casual (open with sometime background music)

(open with sometime background music) library (isolated and quiet)

These can be adapted to smaller scales by combining them. As the mood and activity of library spaces is almost identical, a single space can cover both uses, though it’s worth noting that keyboard typing can be distracting if you’re just sitting reading with a drink. 😉

Lively on the other hand is not compatible across both, however a lively lounge is an occasional use, thus can simply claim another lounge providing there’s more than one so as not to create contention. If there’s a single lounge, the escape is only private space. A lively workspace also obviously does not support focussed work, but ad-hoc, thus is compatible with adaptable space use such as in a dining area.

There must be at least one dedicated workspace. If units have private desks then that space can be casual, otherwise it should be a library to complement by offering choice.

Where two casual spaces are not possible, the lounge and workspace can again be combined, else eliminated entirely with the uses of the lively and library areas being more permeable.

Lively spaces are well suited to placement near kitchens, with the dining area functioning as open overflow workspace, plus a kitchen provides transition between spaces. Casual aligns with lobby spaces and thus we can see it is the norm in hybrid developments.

So have fun playing around with all this, it may be in your mind for but a while, yet your guests and residents will be using it significantly longer❣️