While some forms of co-living seek to match modern lifestyles and a desire to downsize, other profit-driven models simply exploit a lack of affordable housing alternatives.
Treasurer Scott Morrison this week reignited the discussion about housing affordability in Australia. The question is: will the government be willing to bring forward meaningful reform?
Scott Morrison is a "once bitten, never shy" sort of guy. The Treasurer this week launched into the hot topic of housing affordability.
The government will push states to remove unnecessary residential land use planning regulations that are impeding the supply of housing, Treasurer Scott Morrison will say in a major speech.
By focusing on intergenerational inequalities that will eventually be reversed, we are framing the housing affordability question the wrong way.
Without long-term solutions to the imbalance between incomes and house prices, Gen Ys face a lifetime of renting without the financial and emotional security of home ownership.
A decent national housing policy is not just about the million or so Australians who are in housing need, marginal housing or homeless. In reality, all the housing sectors are connected.
Negative gearing reform is complex and fraught, with a chequered recent history. The key to any future reform will be finding a way to equitably change it without losing its benefit.
The elephant in the room is the difference between those who own and those who rent their homes.
When it's cheaper to buy and rent out and then rent another place, you know something is wrong with negative gearing.
Some common misapprehensions remain about who needs affordable housing and how those needs might be met.
It makes sense for the federal government to grease the wheels of federal-state tax reform.
Young people are not entitled to a life as comfortable as that of their parents, but they are entitled to expect that governments will not hinder them in that pursuit.
The default position for politicians is to sound concerned about housing affordability, but do nothing. This can be explained by the idea of 'policy capture', in this case by industry interests.
What if there was a middle option between retention and abolition that made negative gearing work better? There are multiple ways to improve accountability for this $8 billion-a-year tax concession.
The problem is there are already too many buyers willing to pay high prices, and negative gearing is designed to create more buyers willing to pay more.
Government policy has not, on the whole, failed. It has been a huge success insofar as protecting the opportunities for speculative investment and profit for homeowners and private landlords.
In what looks to be a landmark policy announcement with possible national ramifications, the NSW government has outlined the first phase of a $1 billion fund to develop social and affordable housing.
There are far too many financial incentives keeping older Australians from choosing to downsize.
It's up to state governments to ensure urban planning rules properly reflect both the desires of residents in the 21st century and the principles of sustainability.