As remote working reshapes daily life, a new approach to housing could help people find community closer to home. But can vertical neighbourhoods deliver on their promise?
At six o’clock, the laptop closes. You have spent the day talking to colleagues in London, Lisbon and New York, yet have nobody nearby to meet for a drink. Remote working can give us extraordinary freedom over where we live, while leaving the business of making friends entirely up to us.
Britain’s argument about working from home needs to take that social life seriously. The Office for National Statistics found that 28% of working adults in Great Britain worked in a hybrid pattern between January and March 2025. For people whose colleagues are elsewhere, the design of the place they call home deserves more attention.
That’s the promise of the vertical neighbourhood: a building combining private homes with shared workspaces, exercise facilities and places to spend time together. Often marketed as co-living, these developments can make everyday contact easier. Where land is scarce, bringing different uses together on several floors can also shorten journeys without extending the urban footprint.
The market is growing. Savills reported close to 9,000 operational co-living units across the UK in 2025, with around 5,500 under construction. At ARK Canary Wharf, residents have access to workspaces, a gym, swimming pool, cinema and organised events. The Palm House in Harrow brings more than 200 studios together with shared facilities across eight floors.
Other countries offer variations. Lisbon’s Nido Santa Apolónia combines accommodation for students and young professionals with shared workspaces, a gym and pool in a former industrial building. The Social Hub Porto mixes hotel rooms and apartments with coworking and leisure facilities. Singapore’s lyf Funan offers an apartment hotel with shared kitchens, working areas and regular events. These are different residential and hospitality models, with different contracts and charges; they share an interest in making social contact part of the building’s everyday life.
Friendship starts with familiar faces
That matters because friendship usually needs repeated encounters. Someone you meet once at a networking evening may remain a contact in your phone. Someone you see over coffee, at a weekly class, and again while making dinner has a better chance of becoming a friend. A shared building provides occasions to meet without requiring every interaction to be booked a fortnight ahead.
For remote workers, neighbours can become lunch companions even when their employers are on different continents. A film night, book group or communal meal gives newcomers a reason to turn up before they know anybody.
Residents also need the freedom to start their own activities and to decline an invitation. A private front door and somewhere quiet to retreat remain essential.
The appeal of simpler living
There is a less glamorous attraction for busy people: fewer household arrangements to manage. Depending on the contract, one monthly payment can cover rent, utilities, broadband, council tax and access to shared facilities. Moving in need not involve choosing several suppliers or waiting for an internet installation. Maintenance can have a single point of contact. For someone starting a demanding job or arriving in an unfamiliar city, that simplicity has real value.
The price still needs scrutiny. “All inclusive” may exclude laundry, parking or particular activities, and a convenient package is not automatically a cheaper one. Renters should be able to see the total cost, understand the exclusions and judge whether they will actually use what they are paying for. Predictability only helps when the terms are clear.
Designing for healthier, more inclusive lives
Having a gym a few floors away can also make an active routine easier to sustain. A swim or exercise class fits more readily into the evening when it requires a short lift journey. A neighbour expecting you at the gym adds another reason to go. Facilities cannot guarantee healthy habits, but they can remove some of the practical obstacles that turn good intentions into another evening on the sofa.
For people with limited mobility, the potential is greater still. Accessible routes between a home, workspace and social room can make participation less dependent on transport or assistance. That requires more than installing a lift: doorways, bathrooms, shared equipment and step-free routes must work for the people using them. Reliable lifts and suitable emergency arrangements are part of that design.
Singapore’s Kampung Admiralty, which brings housing for older people together with healthcare, shops and community spaces, shows how this approach can serve a broader population. Britain should take that inclusive ambition seriously. The benefits of proximity should reach beyond young professionals with well-paid jobs.
Community must not come at a premium
Cost is the difficult part of the British debate. A pool and an events calendar cannot compensate for an inadequate private room or an insecure housing arrangement. These developments should sit alongside investment in affordable homes and public spaces. Libraries, parks and community centres give people places to belong without requiring them to rent from a particular operator.
The relationship with the surrounding neighbourhood matters too. Ground-floor cafés, shared activities and spaces open to local people can help a building become part of the street. Residents should feel able to explore the city beyond their front door. A well-designed home should make that easier by giving them more time and a few people to go with.
I believe vertical neighbourhoods deserve a place among Britain’s housing choices. Their most useful contribution may be giving remote workers somewhere to find familiar faces after the last call ends. The freedom to work from anywhere becomes more rewarding when there is someone nearby with whom to share the rest of the day.
The post Can co-living solve the social isolation of remote work? appeared first on Raconteur.