Making room for whom? Co-living as a reinvention of rooming houses for the commodified city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div>Co-living, a form of living characterized by individually rented rooms with shared amenities, is framed by proponents as an innovative form of housing that addresses many ills of contemporary urban life, such as housing affordability and isolation. However, the practice of renting individual rooms is not new, providing some of the lowest-cost market housing in North American cities including Toronto. I trace the lineage of various forms of collective living to conceptualize the roots of co-living. I argue that the rise of contemporary co-living and the decline of rooming houses in urban centres are part of the same process of urban transformation associated with</div><div>gentrification. Through interviews and chats with planners in Ontario and representatives from co-living companies, I compare the perspectives of various co-living stakeholders. I then explore the possible effects of the proliferation of co-living on housing affordability and rooming houses and what it means for policymakers moving forward.</div><div><br></div><div>Key words: co-living, rooming houses, housing, gentrification</div>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".