Robert Boyer
Forskningsledare
Contact Robert
Photo:
Riksbyggen
New Rules Could Boost Sustainable Shared Housing
Housing companies, architects, and sustainability teams are under pressure to cut emissions, use space efficiently, and support social sustainability. Shared housing models like co-living and co-housing can help resolve these challenges and recent actions by the Swedish government may make the development of shared housing much easier.
Over the past decade, research has shown that co‑living and co‑housing are far more appealing to residents than their limited market presence suggests. They also tend to be significantly more resource‑efficient than conventional housing of similar size.
From a climate and materials standpoint, shared housing models:
- Concentrate heated floor area, reducing energy demand per resident.
- Reduce appliance and infrastructure duplication—fewer kitchens, bathrooms, washing machines, and building systems serving more people.
- Lower operational and embodied emissions per resident, supporting real estate companies working toward science‑based targets.
- Provide independent living without the resource demands—and social isolation—of single‑occupancy dwellings.
This matters in countries like Sweden, where household sizes continue to decline and nearly half of households consist of a single person. Housing models that enable people to live independently without living alone can relieve multiple urban sustainability pressures at once.
Co‑Housing and Co‑Living: A Quick Overview
Co‑housing has existed in Northern Europe and North America for decades. It typically involves a group of households co‑designing a neighborhood that mixes fully private dwellings with generous shared indoor and outdoor spaces. Parking sits at the periphery, while a common house anchors collective amenities such as a large kitchen, dining room, meeting rooms, and gardens.
Co‑living, by contrast, is a newer and rapidly expanding model in global cities. It resembles co‑working: residents rent smaller private units supported by shared kitchens, lounges, workspaces, and recreational areas. For developers, it enables more intensive use of space; for residents, it offers flexibility, community, and affordability.
Both models rely on a blend of private and shared spaces—but both struggle to fit into existing regulatory categories.
Why Shared Housing Remains Hard to Build
Most housing systems are structured around a limited number of well‑defined dwelling categories. These standardized forms—supported by clear rules for health, safety, spatial allocation, fire protection, and tenancy rights—give developers regulatory certainty. Staying within these categories minimizes risk of delay, appeals, or unexpected legal interpretation.
Shared housing falls into a grey zone. Because it does not align neatly with traditional dwelling definitions, co‑living and co‑housing projects are often treated as exceptions rather than a legitimate housing type. As a result:
- Developers face longer negotiations with authorities.
- Projects become administratively expensive and harder to underwrite.
- Investors perceive greater regulatory risk, suppressing supply relative to demand.
The outcome is a structural mismatch: demand is high, sustainability benefits are strong, but supply remains minimal. An article published by RISE and research partners in the Netherlands and Slovenia argues that it is time to start planning proactively for shared living. Without political and regulatory leadership, co‑living and co‑housing will remain niche, despite their potential to reduce emissions, improve affordability, and strengthen community.
Sweden Takes a Step Toward Regulatory Clarity
In January, the Swedish government issued a legal request (lagrådsremiss) exploring whether co‑living could be formally recognized as its own category—provided that the dwelling is physically adapted for shared living. This requirement distinguishes purpose‑built shared housing from informal room‑letting, addressing long‑standing uncertainty around rent‑setting, tenancy protection, and safety standards.
If adopted, the proposal could bring several advantages:
For housing companies and sustainability officers
- Clearer classification enables more credible carbon and space‑efficiency modeling.
- Reduced project risk makes it easier to scale climate‑aligned portfolios.
- Standardized design requirements support long‑term maintenance and lifecycle planning.
For architects and planners
- Defined expectations for kitchens, bathrooms, fire safety, accessibility, and shared spaces.
- Fewer bespoke negotiations and more predictable approval pathways.
- Ability to design shared housing with the same confidence as conventional dwellings.
For municipalities and the public sector
- A stronger regulatory toolkit for promoting resource‑efficient, socially supportive housing.
- Better alignment with demographic trends and urban sustainability
- goals.
Sweden’s co‑living industry association has responded positively and is monitoring details related to rent levels and adaptation requirements.
Recognizing shared housing as a legitimate, regulated category is an important first step. It lowers perceived risk, clarifies expectations, and gives housing companies and architects the tools they need to design and deliver sustainable homes at scale.