August 14, 2025
Callum Fraser
Australia faces a convergence of housing and social challenges – skyrocketing rents, declining home ownership among youth, and rising isolation among seniors – demanding innovative solutions. The New Standard is a visionary intergenerational housing model that responds to these issues by blending three synergistic components under one roof: co-living studios for young professionals, cohousing apartments for older adults, and a creative members’ club open to all ages. This integrated “vertical village” reimagines urban living, where a twenty-something startup coder and a seventy-something retiree might share a community garden, exchange ideas over dinner, and both feel at home. The concept’s core mission is to rekindle human connection and dissolve age barriers in cities by transforming housing into a platform for community, well-being, and mutual support.
Traditional housing models in Australia are straining under demographic and economic shifts. Home ownership, once the norm, slipped to ~43% for under-35s (down from 61% in the 1980s)1, pushing more young people into long-term renting. At the same time, more seniors find themselves renting or isolated; women over 55 are Australia’s fastest-growing homeless demographic. The rental market is in crisis, national vacancy rates hover around 1% and less than 0.5% of rentals are affordable for pensioners or low-income youth – underscoring a dire need for affordable, community-oriented rental options. Meanwhile, loneliness has reached epidemic levels across generations: surveys show young adults (18–24) report the highest loneliness of any age group2, and over 15% of Australians over 65 often feel lonely. Current housing arrangements, whether isolating single apartments or age restricted retirement villages, often exacerbate generational silos and social isolation . These trends create an imperative (and an opportunity) for new housing paradigms that bridge generational divides, improve quality of life, and relieve housing stress.
This discussion paper details The New Standard’s three-pillar model and its relevance as a next-generation Build-to-Rent (BTR) development. Each pillar is tailored to a demographic but knit together to form one community:
(1) Co-living studios offer 20–30m² furnished units for mobile young renters, paired with abundant shared amenities and community events to combat urban loneliness.
(2) Co-housing apartments provide spacious, age-friendly homes for older residents (60+) with design features for aging-in-place and access to light-touch care, allowing seniors to downsize without sacrificing independence or social life.
(3) A creative members’ club serves as the communal heart, a combined coworking, wellness, and cultural space drawing both residents and locals for intergenerational interaction. The club’s facilities (gym, spa, café, arts and event spaces) and curated programming ensure daily life is rich with activity and cross-age engagement. By design, The New Standard generates constant opportunities for connection – a resident club that hosts everything from morning yoga and mentoring workshops to evening concerts, fostering a sense of belonging that traditional apartments lack.
The New Standard is positioned as a premium BTR asset with multidimensional returns. Financially, the integrated model diversifies income streams across young and senior housing plus membership and hospitality revenue, promising enhanced yield relative to single-use projects. Co-living units achieve high rent per square meter (through density and all-inclusive convenience), senior apartments offer stable long-term tenancy, and the members’ club adds revenue via membership fees and services boosting Net Operating Income overall. Strategically, the broad appeal to multiple markets (young professionals, downsizers, and external members) drives resilient demand and occupancy. Residents drawn by community are more likely to renew leases, mitigating churn, and the intergenerational social value aligns with rising ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) criteria for investors. Moreover, by directly addressing isolation and fostering support networks, the model adds social impact, healthier, happier tenants which can translate into tangible benefits such as lower healthcare usage and stronger community reputation. Early precedents in co-living and mixed-age housing internationally have demonstrated strong occupancy (often 90%+ even during downturns) and investor interest, validating the model’s viability. In short, The New Standard represents a future proof evolution of housing: an intergenerational community that is economically sustainable, socially enriching, and scalable in the Australian context.
The following paper provides a detailed blueprint of The New Standard, backed by market trends and case studies. It challenges policymakers, urban planners, investors, and community leaders to reconsider conventional housing silos. As Australia’s BTR sector surges to over 10,000 operational units in 2025 , now is the time to infuse this growth with innovation and purpose. We invite a critical dialogue on how intergenerational living could reshape our cities sparking questions about the role of housing in combating loneliness, the potential for policy reform to encourage mixed-age communities, and the metrics by which we judge a development’s success. The New Standard aims not just to build apartments, but to build social capital and redefine the “Australian Dream” for a new era.
Modern cities are at a crossroads: housing has never been more financially out of reach for younger generations, yet never more socially isolating for the old. In Australia, the rate of home ownership has steadily declined to ~67% overall (2021) from 70% in the 1980s, with the sharpest drop among young adults1 . Over half of 25–34-year-olds were homeowners in the 1980s, but by 2021 that fell below 45%1. Many under 40 now face the prospect of renting for life. At the same time, renting in the private market has become highly unaffordable, a 2025 national survey found virtually no rentals affordable on a Youth Allowance income, and only 0.3% of listings affordable for someone on an Age Pension4. The share of renting households has crept above 30%, increasingly encompassing not just students and low-income earners but also middle-class families and retirees. For older Australians in particular, loss of home ownership can be devastating women over 55 now represent the country’s fastest growing homeless cohort3, often due to economic shocks or lack of affordable downsizing options.
Parallel to this housing affordability crisis is a quiet social crisis the fragmentation of communities by age. Urban life, despite its density, often leaves people feeling alone in a crowd. Younger adults report epidemic levels of loneliness (exacerbated by transient renting and digital lifestyles)2 . Meanwhile, many seniors live alone or in age-restricted enclaves, separated from family or community; more than 15% of Australians over 65 experience chronic loneliness6. This isolation has serious public health implications: prolonged loneliness is linked to higher risks of depression, dementia, and even premature mortality. Conventional housing exacerbates the issue consider typical apartment blocks where neighbors rarely interact, or retirement villages on city fringes that, while socially rich internally, keep elders apart from younger generations. Age segregation has become ingrained in our housing system (single family suburbs for working adults, downtown units for young renters, retirement complexes for seniors), and research suggests such segregation can intensify loneliness and ageism 7. In short, our cities’ housing mix is misaligned with societal needs: we have “over housed” in terms of physical space but “under housed” in terms of social connection and diversity.
Intergenerational housing offers a compelling reimagination of this status quo. By intentionally mixing ages and life stages under one roof, it seeks to restore the natural social fabric that once came from extended family living or tight-knit neighborhoods. The vision is that daily encounters a grandfatherly figure chatting with a teenager in the lobby, a recent graduate helping a retiree with smartphone tips, or a group of all ages gardening together become organic, routine parts of life. These interactions can counteract stereotypes (young and old seeing each other as real people rather than “other” groups), foster empathy, and allow skills and care to flow both ways. International experiments underscore the benefits: in the Netherlands, for example, nursing home residents who live with student roommates (in a program trading free rent for volunteerism) experienced improved mood and engagement . In the US, multigenerational communities like Bridge Meadows (which houses foster children, adoptive parents, and seniors in one community) have demonstrated better outcomes for all youth thriving with stable mentors, and elders finding purpose as honorary grandparents. These examples highlight a simple yet profound truth: people need each other, and bringing different generations together can unlock mutual support that no government program or single-age community can easily provide.
This discussion paper positions The New Standard as a prototype for intergenerational urban living in Australia’s context. It builds on the emergent Build-to-Rent sector which is rapidly gaining traction as a solution to the housing shortage but infuses it with a socially innovative twist. Rather than building yet another monolithic apartment tower or retirees’ village, The New Standard proposes a vertical community where young renters, older downsizers, and local creatives share space and build a shared culture. In doing so, it aims to address key policy questions: How can we make cities more inclusive for all ages? Can private developments help alleviate social isolation, effectively acting as community infrastructure? What new investment models or partnerships (public-private, inter-sectoral) might be unlocked by housing that delivers both profit and social value? The sections below detail the three interconnected pillars of the model, examine the market trends that make such a concept timely, and present the investment rationale. Together, they illustrate why intergenerational housing is not just a utopian idea, but a feasible and potentially transformative direction for Australia’s housing future.
An overview of the model’s components, each designed for a specific cohort yet integrated into one community.
1. Co-Living Studios: Community-Rich Urban Living for Youth
Design & Lifestyle: The co-living pillar targets young adults – think 20s and 30s professionals, creatives, students, or digital nomads – who crave urban convenience and social connection over excess space. A typical New Standard development dedicates roughly 150–200 units to co-living studios, each a self-contained micro-apartment of ~25–35 m². Though compact, these private suites are thoughtfully designed with full bathrooms, efficient kitchenettes and multi-purpose furniture, providing comfort and privacy for solo living. However, what differentiates co-living from a mere micro-apartment building is the abundance of shared spaces and services intentionally layered throughout. On each floor there may be a lounge or communal kitchen where residents can cook or relax together, and the building offers a spectacular rooftop or penthouse level with amenities like a panoramic dining hall, BBQ decks, co-working lounges and even guest suites for visitors. The architecture often blurs private and public realms e.g. personal corridors opening into airy atriums or large shared kitchens to encourage chance encounters. The goal is to replicate the camaraderie of a great share house or college dorm minus the usual headaches (no fighting over bills or cleaning duties) essentially providing a “plug-and-play” social life for busy young urbanites. As one pioneering project in London demonstrated, co-living developments can include everything from gyms and libraries to quirky perks like a “disco launderette” (a laundromat doubling as a mini night-club) to turn mundane chores into social happenings . By concentrating these diverse amenities under one roof, coliving offers an engaging, youthful vibe akin to a vertical neighborhood or “micro city” where there’s always something happening just outside your door.
Community & Operations: A hallmark of co-living is its hospitality-like management that actively fosters community. Professional community managers (sometimes titled “experience curators”) organize a rich calendar of events: weekly yoga and fitness classes, skill workshops (from coding to cooking), movie and game nights, group outings to local events, etc. These aren’t afterthoughts but core to co-living’s value proposition of combating urban loneliness. Studies show young renters often flock to co-living specifically for the built-in social network it provides . Lease terms are flexible residents might rent for 3 months or 2+ years reflecting the transient nature of modern work and study, and all-inclusive rent (covering utilities, Wi-Fi, cleaning, furniture) removes the friction points that typically frustrate renters. The ease of move-in/move-out and the constant flow of activities mean residents can immediately “plug in” to a community and form friendships, addressing the isolation that often comes with moving to a big city . In essence, co-living treats community as an amenity as important as a gym or pool. Privacy is still respected (each tenant has their own locked studio), but right outside one’s door is a network of peers and potential friends. From an intergenerational perspective, the presence of the other pillars (see below) means these young residents also share the broader building ecosystem with older adults and outside members, naturally expanding their social circle beyond the typical 20-something bubble. This can manifest in organic ways, a retired neighbor might mentor a young entrepreneur in the co-working lounge, or students might invite older residents to their open-mic night. By providing youthful energy and digital savvy, the younger cohort also enriches the community for their elders (e.g. teaching a tech workshop or simply offering intergenerational friendship).
Example in Practice: (Case study moved to Appendix) Globally, co-living has proven its appeal. Developments like The Collective Old Oak in London (546-unit co-living opened 2016) achieved occupancies above 95% even during challenging market periods and demonstrated that many renters will trade private space for community and convenience. Old Oak’s residents pay a premium rent per square foot for the all-inclusive lifestyle, yet from their perspective the absolute cost is often lower than renting a traditional studio when factoring shared facilities and utilities . The project’s sale in 2022 for ~£115 million (after attracting 10 institutional offers) highlighted investor confidence in the co-living model 13. These precedents give The New Standard a solid foundation: the concept of stylish communal living for the “connected generation” has been tested and refined overseas, indicating strong demand and sustainable operations when done right.
2. Co-Housing Apartments: Aging-in-Place with Community Support
Design & Lifestyle: Adjacent to the buzz of co-living, The New Standard dedicates another wing or floor section to co-housing for seniors, typically offering 40–60 independent apartments for residents 60 years and up. Importantly, this is not a nursing home or stereotypical retirement village where there are no uniform cottages behind gates, no institutional vibe. Instead, co-housing units are modern, full-size apartments (100–150 m² for 1-2 bedrooms) designed for aging-in-place so that older residents can live autonomously in a safe, engaging environment. Units feature age-friendly design: step-free entries, single-level layouts (no stairs to climb), wider doorways and hallways to accommodate walkers or wheelchairs, lever-style handles for arthritic hands, excellent lighting, and provisions for future adaptability (e.g. reinforced bathroom walls for easy installation of grab bars). Many include balconies or bay windows to bring in sunlight and views combating the closed-in feeling that many downsizers fear when leaving a freestanding home. While private and secure, these apartments connect into a larger community through shared spaces specifically geared to seniors’ interests: cozy lounges on each floor, perhaps opening onto an atrium winter-garden where one can stroll among indoor plants; a communal kitchen and dining room where residents can organize potluck dinners or cooking classes; craft and hobby rooms (for woodworking, art, sewing); a quiet library nook for reading or puzzles; and outdoor gardens with seating, vegetable beds, and maybe a bocce or pétanque court for light exercise. Such amenities are not mere luxuries they are intentional “collision points” to ensure even a shy 70-year-old has daily opportunities to bump into neighbors and chat over tea or tend tomatoes together. This echoes successful Northern European senior co-housing projects (like Denmark’s Agorahaverne) which prioritize abundant communal facilities to create a close-knit village atmosphere . In these settings, residents have privacy when desired and community when needed a balance that can drastically reduce the loneliness often found in single-family aging.
Community & Care: Co-housing in The New Standard is independent living, but with a light layer of support akin to an “assisted living lite.” A small on-site team is available for the senior wing: for instance, a daytime community manager (with background in aged care or social work) who checks in on residents, helps coordinate activities or services, and an on-call nurse or care coordinator for emergencies and health navigation. There is no invasive medical infrastructure on-site, but residents have peace of mind knowing help is nearby if needed whether it’s organizing a physiotherapy session in the club’s wellness center or responding swiftly to a fall. Importantly, this support is woven discreetly; the atmosphere remains of a home, not a clinic. The community manager also curates programming for older residents: low-impact exercise classes (tai chi, water aerobics in the pool), book clubs, music nights, excursions to galleries or theatres, often in collaboration with the younger residents and the members’ club staff, to nurture intergenerational bonds. For example, a tech-savvy young resident might host a weekly “smartphone 101” workshop for seniors, or conversely, an older resident might lead a mentoring circle on career development for youths. These exchanges benefit everyone and strengthen the sense of purpose: seniors feel valued for their wisdom and skills, and youths gain life experience and guidance. The design of the building encourages these overlaps (shared gardens, mixed-age event invites), ensuring the co-housing wing is not an isolated “old folks’ home” but an integral part of the community. By offering seniors an active lifestyle, friendships next door, and freedom from home maintenance, the co-housing pillar appeals to the growing segment of older Australians who want to downsize without sacrificing social fulfillment or dignity. It provides a compelling alternative to both aging alone in a family home (prone to isolation) and entering a segregated retirement complex. As one Danish architect noted, “a major challenge among older (people)... is loneliness,” which thoughtful co-housing design can counter by ensuring plenty of semi-public spaces where neighbors naturally cross paths 29. The New Standard embraces this philosophy, allowing residents over 60 to thrive in a place connected, safe, and free to be as active and creative as they wish.
Intergenerational Synergy: A critical differentiator of The New Standard is that these senior co-housing residents are not tucked away on a separate campus; they live door-to-door with younger neighbors in the co-living studios and share the members’ club with the broader community. This proximity by design encourages organic intergenerational relationships. For instance, an older resident might regularly join coliving folks for morning coffee at the ground-floor café, or tutor a few of the younger residents in a foreign language or life skill. Building events intentionally mix ages movie nights, gardening clubs, and holiday parties so that no one feels out of place. Such daily contact helps break down stereotypes (younger people see beyond the “grandma” archetype, older folks understand youth beyond headlines), building mutual respect and friendships. International models like the Dutch Humanitas and US Bridge Meadows (see Appendix) have shown that when older adults and youth form meaningful bonds, it yields measurable improvements in well-being, reduced ageism, and a sense of “extended family” that modern society often lacks19 . The New Standard aims to harness that on a broader scale: neighbors caring for neighbors, whether it’s a 25- year-old helping carry a senior’s groceries or a 70-year-old teaching a skill to a teenager. In policy terms, this speaks to aging-in-place goals and “social care” creating environments where seniors naturally have support networks, potentially easing burdens on formal aged care systems. It’s community resilience in action.
3. Creative Members’ Club: A Shared Cultural Hub for All Ages
Concept & Facilities: The third pillar is the Creative Members’ Club, envisioned as the social and cultural heart of development not just for residents but for the surrounding city community. Occupying roughly 1,500–2,000 m² (one or two floors of the building, plus rooftop areas), this club operates akin to an upscale community center meets co-working hub meets private club. Its mission: to bring people of all ages together through shared interests, wellness, and creativity. In practice, the club offers a suite of facilities rivaling a boutique hotel or modern co-working space. By day, one wing functions as a co-working area with open desks, meeting rooms, and private nooks, attracting remote professionals and entrepreneurs (including both residents and external members) who want a stylish workspace with a social atmosphere. The design is hospitality-driven, think comfortable lounges with art on the walls, a café serving good coffee and healthy lunches, and plenty of natural light encouraging serendipitous interactions among those working there. Come evening, the venue transforms: a restaurant and lounge bars come to life, event spaces host talks or live music, and the rooftop garden might be set up for a sunset mixer. Akin to the famed Soho House network of clubs, the vibe is creative and welcoming rather than stuffy . Importantly, The New Standard Club is open to non-resident members (for a fee), ensuring a steady inflow of new faces and ideas. This blurs the line between a private residential amenity and a public venue. The building becomes a locus of activity for the wider community, preventing the silo effect that often plagues age-specific facilities .
Beyond workspace and dining, the club’s amenities emphasize wellness and culture, catering to an intergenerational palate. A wellness center offers spa treatment rooms, yoga studios, perhaps an indoor lap pool and saunas enabling residents and members to prioritize health. (This mirrors the trend of wellness-focused private clubs like The WELL in New York, which found success charging $375/month for integrated health services in a club setting ). A state-of-the-art fitness center accommodates both high-intensity workouts and senior-friendly classes, recognizing that a 70-year-old and a 30-year-old might use the gym differently but can share the same facility. On the cultural side, a multi-purpose event hall or screening room allows for regular programming: from film screenings and art exhibitions to TED-style talks and hands-on workshops. The rooftop, landscaped with greenery, doubles as an outdoor lounge and urban farm, hosting community gardening sessions, weekend family brunches, or summer night parties under the stars. One week’s calendar might include a live jazz night, an intergenerational cooking class (grandparents and teenagers making recipes together), a lecture on urban sustainability, and a comedy show for everyone. By intentionally curating inclusive events, the club cultivates an atmosphere where a 25-year-old graphic designer, a 45-year-old lawyer, and a 75-year-old retired teacher all feel equally welcome. The underlying strategy is to create “collisions with intent” giving people reasons to mingle across age and background around shared passions.
Membership Model & Operations: All residents of The New Standard (both co-living and co-housing) are automatically base members of the club; their membership is bundled with rent. This ensures the space is activated by a built-in community. External members from the broader community can join for a monthly or annual fee (with tiers for those who want co-working access, full gym/spa use, etc.), generating an additional revenue stream for the property. Precedents like Soho House have demonstrated that people will pay significant fees (A$4,000 per year) for access to curated spaces and a like-minded community , and often treat the club as an extension of their home and office. In The New Standard’s more localized context, membership might be in reach for middle-class professionals or active retirees (e.g. a few hundred dollars per month), offering tremendous value: a single membership replaces the need for separate gym subscriptions, co-working leases, and social club fees by bundling them. Operationally, the club is run by hospitality professionals, a concierge team, event curators, baristas and chefs, wellness instructors, etc. delivering high-quality service. It opens early and closes late, reflecting diverse usage patterns: seniors might use the pool at 7am, co-working areas fill by 9am with remote workers, after-school art classes might run at 4pm for local youth, and by 7pm the bar and dining areas fill up for dinner events. By spanning roughly 18 hours of activity each day, the club keeps the building vibrant around the clock . This not only enhances safety and engagement (there’s always staff and community around) but also optimizes the use of space for revenue. A few residential units might even be reserved as guest suites for short stays (for visiting families of residents or for external members), adding a boutique hospitality element and income (a model used by clubs like Soho House and Aman ).
Intergenerational Impact: The true magic of the members’ club is in how it knits together the co-living and co-housing populations with each other and with the outside world. Because club events and facilities are inherently cross-generational e.g. a music concert or art class is open to anyone interested they naturally facilitate interactions that wouldn’t happen in a siloed apartment or seniors’ home. A young entrepreneur might meet a retired business owner in the club’s mentorship meetup and gain invaluable advice. A middle-aged member from the neighborhood might start volunteering to teach a class that attracts both young and old participants. Even casual daily proximity (say, sharing the same café line or attending the same yoga class) builds familiarity and neighborliness across age lines. By designing out isolation, the club helps ensure no residents of The New Standard slip through the cracks socially. This is a deliberate contrast to typical developments where amenities (if any) are passively used and often segregated (children’s playroom vs. seniors’ lounge, etc.); here, spaces are shared and dynamic. There is evidence from progressive senior communities that integration with younger people improves older adults’ health and outlook , while younger people in turn gain empathy, social skills and networking from older peers. Culturally, the presence of an active club means The New Standard is not just a place to live, but a destination contributes a public space to the city. This can generate goodwill and broader community impact: local organizations might partner to host events, universities could collaborate on intergenerational programs, and the development becomes known as a neighborhood hub of creativity and connection. In summary, the creative members’ club amplifies the development’s social ecosystem, making it more than the sum of its parts. It’s the catalyst that keeps the community humming, outward-looking, and resilient through change truly embodying the vision of intergenerational living as the new standard for urban life.
Why The New Standard is timely and how it aligns with emerging trends in housing, demographics, and investment.
Declining Home Ownership & Rise of Renting: Australia’s housing landscape has shifted dramatically over the past few decades, challenging the assumptions of the “Great Australian Dream.” Home ownership, once near 3 in 4 households in the 1960s, has fallen to 67% in 2021 1. The decline is most pronounced among younger generations, only 43% of 25–34-year-olds owned a home in 2021, down from 61% in 1981 1. Stagnant incomes, skyrocketing property prices, and precarious employment have forced many under 40s to postpone or abandon buying. This has led to a growing cohort of long-term (or “lifetime”) renters, for whom secure and high-quality rental housing is needed. On the flip side, older Australians have high ownership rates overall, but those who miss out on ownership (or who lose housing due to divorce or economic hardship) face especially acute insecurity late in life. The proportion of older renters, while still relatively low, is rising – and as noted, older single women are disproportionately affected by housing stress and homelessness 3. The Build-to-Rent (BTR) model has emerged as a potential solution to provide professionally managed, stable rental accommodation at scale. Although nascent in Australia, BTR is expanding rapidly: by Q1 2025, over 10,000 purpose-built rental units were operational (double the prior year) and some 65,000 are in the pipeline4 . Institutional investors, from superannuation funds to global real estate firms, are now entering the residential space historically dominated by “mum-and-pop” landlords. This creates a ripe moment to introduce innovative BTR concepts like The New Standard that can differentiate themselves in a crowded market. With renting increasingly common across a broader income and age spectrum, developments that cater to specific niches (young professionals, downsizing retirees) within one project can capture a wider tenant pool and achieve more resilient occupancy. In addition, governments have begun to support BTR through tax incentives and planning reforms, seeing it as one avenue to increase housing supply and affordability. The New Standard’s blending of co-living and co-housing units could appeal to policymakers looking to ensure BTR projects address diverse housing needs (including social objectives like housing older renters).
Housing Affordability & Social Isolation as Policy Drivers: The severity of the rental affordability crisis in Australia has elevated housing (and by extension, community well-being) to a top-tier public issue. Anglicare’s 2025 Rental Affordability Snapshot underscores how dire the situation is for vulnerable groups: essentially 0% of rentals are affordable for those on government supports like Youth Allowance, and for age pensioners only a few scattered share-house rooms met the “affordable” criteria4 . Even middle-income workers in cities are experiencing rental stress as median rents hit record highs and vacancy rates in major cities sit below 1–2% . These conditions beg the question; can new housing models alleviate some pressures? The New Standard directly tackles affordability through design: co-living units, being smaller and efficiently designed, offer young tenants a lower entry price point (even if the rent per m² is high, the absolute rent can be moderate since the unit is compact, and expenses are shared). Meanwhile, older residents in co-housing might find it financially advantageous to give up the cost of maintaining a house (and possibly even monetize their home equity) to rent an apartment with utilities, maintenance, and amenities included. There’s also potential for “cross-subsidy” in the model for instance, the revenue from the members’ club and higher-yield co-living could allow slightly below-market rents for a subset of senior units, effectively creating mixed-income support. These ideas align with calls by experts to diversify housing options beyond binary ownership vs. social housing . Intergenerational projects might even attract government grants or partnerships, especially if they can demonstrate outcomes like reduced loneliness or aging-in-place cost savings (e.g. fewer hospital admissions or delayed entry into aged care, thanks to community support). On the social side, loneliness and isolation have been increasingly recognized by policymakers as a public health crisis the federal government established initiatives to “End Loneliness Together” and local councils are exploring “age-friendly city” strategies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of community cohesion and support came sharply into focus, with 18-24-year-olds reporting the highest loneliness levels and older people suffering extreme isolation when cut off from visitors2 . The New Standard offers a tangible blueprint to address these issues through the built environment. By measuring and highlighting metrics such as resident satisfaction, intergenerational interactions (e.g. hours spent in mentoring or group activities), and health/utilization outcomes, such a project can strengthen the case that housing is social infrastructure. This could influence future housing policy, for example, providing incentives for developments that include communal spaces or mixed-age residents, like how green building standards are encouraged. The model aligns well with ESG investing trends too: many funds are now screening for projects that deliver social value (the “S” in ESG) alongside returns . A community that demonstrably reduces loneliness, increases civic engagement, and improves quality of life for residents could be showcased as a flagship ESG investment11 . In summary, the timing is ideal for an intergenerational housing model to hit multiple policy targets: boosting supply in the rental market, providing affordable options for those locked out of ownership, and proactively improving social well-being.
Urban Planning & Zoning Implications: Adopting intergenerational housing models will also provoke useful debate in urban planning circles. Zoning and building codes in Australia currently tend to segregate uses (residential vs commercial) and sometimes ages (e.g. seniors’ housing classifications). The New Standard deliberately mixes what might traditionally be seen as a private residential building with “Quasi-public” functions (a club open to outsiders). This challenges planners to think more flexibly: Could future high-density zoning explicitly encourage community facilities in residential projects? Could we see requirements (or bonuses) for including, say, a percentage of units designed for seniors or family households within any large development, to ensure age diversity? Some cities overseas have mandated “social mix” in housing, an Australian interpretation might be to ensure new precincts aren’t monolithic (all student housing, or all luxury condos, etc.). Intergenerational housing could become a desirable component of masterplans, helping to create 24/7 activated neighborhoods and avoiding ghettos of single demographics. Additionally, by combining multiple uses, such projects make more efficient use of scarce urban land at a point to leverage in discussions with councils about site approvals (i.e. one development serving multiple community needs). There may be hurdles, of course: building codes must ensure accessibility for seniors, safety for all age groups, and mitigate any potential conflicts (like noise management between lively co-living areas and quieter senior areas addressed through thoughtful design and operations). But these are surmountable with modern design practice. If demonstrated successfully, The New Standard could influence guidelines for “vertical mixed-use” developments and spur cities to update regulations to be more supportive of innovative housing typologies.
Build-to-Rent Evolution: Finally, from a real estate industry perspective, The New Standard represents a forward evolution of the BTR asset class itself. Initially, BTR in Australia has focused on conventional apartment products (often targeted at young professionals in inner cities). To stand out, developers are already exploring niches e.g. some projects tailor to families with larger units and child-friendly amenities, others to students or key workers. An intergenerational project is a logical next step, potentially unlocking new demand segments. It could also create operational efficiencies and risk mitigation: filing units might be easier when appealing to two distinct groups (if one market softens, the other might be stable). We’ve seen in the US and UK that institutional rental moved from vanilla apartments to offering packages of lifestyle services (concierge, events, etc.) to justify premium rents; The New Standard takes that to another level by embedding an actual private club. If successful, the model could command a brand premium much like how some senior living providers or co-living brands-built reputations for community-rich experiences. That brand could be expanded or replicated in multiple locations, attracting a loyal customer base of renters and members who seek out the “community cure” for urban loneliness. With Australia’s BTR sector still representing <1% of total housing stock , there is significant room for growth. The concept here positions BTR not just as a profit-making endeavor but as a platform for social innovation, an idea likely to appeal to impact investors, government housing partnerships, and progressive developers alike.
(Analysis of the financial and strategic advantages for investors, comparing The New Standard model to conventional developments.)
Diversified Revenue Streams: From an investor’s lens, a key appeal of The New Standard model is its multiple income sources under one roof. A conventional apartment development (or even a standard BTR) relies almost entirely on rent from residential units. In contrast, this tri-part model generates at least three distinct revenue streams:
(1) Co-living rents which, on a per-square-meter basis, are high due to the smaller private footprints and premium services included. Young tenants often pay slightly below-market rent for a studio in absolute terms, but because the units are compact and numerous, the aggregate rent per floor (and per m²) is higher than a building of large apartments . Essentially, space is monetized more efficiently.
(2) Senior co-housing rents – these tend to be stable, long-term leases. Older residents value stability and are less likely to move frequently, reducing vacancy and turnover costs. While rents might be moderated to ensure affordability for this demographic, the low churn and consistent occupancy provide bond-like steady income.
(3) Membership and services revenue the Creative Club contributes via monthly membership fees from external members, event ticket sales, food and beverage income, coworking desk rentals, spa services, etc. For example, if 200 external members pay, say, A$200 per month, that’s $40k/month ($480k/year) gross revenue – equivalent to the rent from perhaps 30-40 additional apartments in value terms . This is a significant revenue kicker that pure residential projects lack. Moreover, the hospitality components (café, event space rental, guest suites) allow for dynamic pricing and promotions, offering management levers to optimize cash flow in ways static rent contracts do not. The net effect is a more resilient income profile: even if residential rents face a dip due to market conditions, the diversified amenities can pick up slack (or vice versa). Mixed-use income also tends to attract higher valuation multiples, as it might be seen akin to a hybrid of multifamily and commercial real estate. The New Standard essentially maximizes the utility of every square meter daytime use, nighttime use, weekdays and weekends, all contributing to the bottom line . This can translate to a superior net operating income (NOI) relative to a traditional single use building of the same size.
Enhanced Demand & Occupancy: The intergenerational approach also provides a strategic marketing edge: broad tenant appeal. By design, the project casts a wide net, it can attract both a 25-year-old tech worker and a 70-year-old retiree, a far wider demographic reach than a typical development. This widens the potential tenant pool substantially. It’s rare for a single property to be competitive for both youth and seniors, but here each has their “own” product while sharing the overall community ethos. Additionally, the inclusion of the club draws in non-residents, effectively serving as a constant advertisement and feeder for the residents (external members or visitors might decide to move in after experiencing the community). A full building benefits the club; a vibrant club makes the building more attractive, a self-reinforcing cycle. High occupancy is crucial for investors, and co-living projects globally have shown the ability to maintain 90–95% occupancy even during economic downturns, due to their flexibility and the human desire for community in tough times . Likewise, senior housing usually enjoys stable occupancy given the demographic wave of aging and limited attractive options for active seniors. Importantly, The New Standard anticipates longer average tenant durations because of the community factor: when residents form friendships and routines in their housing community, they have more reason to stay beyond just the physical unit. This could reduce churn rates compared to generic apartments, saving on leasing costs and keeping cash flow steadier. Moreover, positioning the development at the premium end of rental market (with resort-level amenities and high design) targets segments that typically have more financial stability: young professionals with good salaries and empty-nester couples with home equity or savings. These groups not only can pay premium rents (improving revenue) but also tend to default less, meaning more secure income streams for investors . Even so, many will find value in the offering for example, a co-living resident might pay a bit more per week than in a share-house but saves on commuting (with coworking on site), on utilities and gym membership (included), and gains immeasurable social capital. Similarly, a senior renter might willingly pay a premium for the peace of mind and lifestyle richness provided, offset by savings from no home maintenance or even no car ownership (since so much is accessible on-site). These value propositions underpin sustained demand.
ESG Alignment and Social Impact: Investors today, particularly institutional ones like pension funds, increasingly assess projects through an ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) lens. The New Standard hits powerful notes on the “Social” criterion by its very nature. It is a project designed to alleviate loneliness and foster inclusion, addressing what public health experts label as a growing risk factor in society 10. By providing communal living for seniors and shared experiences between young and old, it directly contributes to social well-being an outcome that can be measured in resident surveys and health metrics. Research indicates intergenerational communities can reduce ageism and improve mental and physical health for both older and younger participants 11. For instance, interaction across ages has been linked to higher empathy and reduced isolation; in one Dutch model, it tangibly improved elders’ happiness and students’ housing affordability in one stroke19 40 . Investors with ESG mandates could see this to deliver social impact alongside returns: the development could track metrics such as reduced loneliness scores, increased volunteerism or mentorship hours, etc, to report in impact portfolios. This kind of data can set the project apart when attracting capital from impact funds or development finance with social objectives. On the environmental side, the mixed-use nature promotes sustainability: having live/work/ leisure in one place reduces the need for transportation (lower carbon footprint per resident) and maximizes land use efficiency (a single footprint for multiple uses) . Modern co-living/co-housing buildings also tend to integrate green design features and could pursue green building certifications (solar panels, energy-efficient appliances, communal resource sharing reduces per capita waste). The New Standard could potentially brand itself as a flagship ESG real estate asset, a selling point for certain investors and a justification for potential government support or fast-tracking (if pitched as aligning with public interest outcomes).
Resilience and Long-Term Value: A diverse, community-centered development is arguably more resilient to market disruptions. The COVID-19 pandemic offered a stress test for housing: many city apartments emptied out or struggled as remote work and social distancing took hold. However, properties that offered community and on-site amenities became refuges people were reminded of the importance of social support. In an intergenerational community, residents have a safety net: seniors living among caring
neighbors (rather than isolated in a house) and with staff on call are less vulnerable in crises; younger residents with co-workers and friends next door cope better with lockdowns or economic stress. This suggests The New Standard could maintain occupancy and rent collection more strongly through downturns (be it pandemics, recessions, or natural disasters) compared to a conventional apartment block . From a valuation standpoint, if The New Standard succeeds, it essentially establishes a new asset sub-class. Early transactions of co-living assets overseas have shown robust investor interest even absent long track records – for example, the sale of The Collective Old Oak in London (mentioned earlier) at $115m in 2022 demonstrated that buyers are willing to pay a premium for these novel assets 13. They see them as combining the stable cash flow of multifamily with the higher yields of hospitality. The New Standard’s added twist (senior housing + club) could attract specialized investors (e.g. healthcare real estate funds, or ESG-focused funds) who might value it even more highly due to the differentiation. In Australia, being a first-of-its-kind intergenerational BTR project could confer a “pioneer premium” in branding and valuation especially if it garners public sector partnership or media attention as a showcase for future living. While innovative, the model is also hedged by its mix: it’s unlikely that all three components underperform simultaneously (different economic forces drive young renter demand vs. senior housing vs. hospitality spending). In sum, the investment case marries profit with purpose: by delivering a product that society needs (affordable, community-oriented housing), it taps into latent demand and achieves revenues others miss, all while building goodwill and resilience that safeguard long-term returns. As the housing market evolves, this could be what the next generation of BTR looks like not just places to live, but platforms for lifestyle and community, with investors reaping the rewards of both financial and social dividends .
The New Standard is more than a real estate concept – it is a provocation to rethink how we build communities in the 21st century. By knitting together co-living, co-housing, and a cultural club, it challenges the default segmentation of housing by age, income, or function. In its place, it proposes an alive, adaptive environment where the needs of one generation enrich the lives of another: where the energy and ideas of youth coalesce with the wisdom and experience of age. This vision is simultaneously creatively ambitious and pragmatically grounded. It speaks to universal human aspirations belonging, purpose, security while leveraging concrete market trends and proven precedents. The detailed case studies in the appendix illustrate that each piece of this puzzle has succeeded elsewhere in some form. The task now is to synthesize them in an Australian context and evaluate the outcomes.
For investors and developers, The New Standard offers a template for differentiation in a competitive market, showing that innovation in housing can unlock new value. For policymakers and urban planners, it poses questions about how our cities might better serve an aging yet youth-filled society, and how policy could encourage more sustainable social development. For community builders and sociologists, it is a living laboratory: can enforced proximity and shared spaces truly rebuild the intergenerational bonds that modern life has frayed? And for the residents – the people who will call these buildings home it promises a life less lonely, more vibrant, and full of opportunity to grow through relationships, not just consumption.
As this discussion paper is presented to a roundtable of experts in co-living, co-housing, sociology, and urban development, its purpose is not to claim all the answers, but to spark a rich conversation. Below we outline some provocative questions to catalyze debate. These touch on housing policy, design philosophy, and investment strategy, reflecting the multifaceted nature of making intergenerational housing a reality. We encourage each expert to consider these through the lens of their discipline, and more importantly, through the lens of human experience that underpins why we build housing in the first place.
Policy Innovation: Should government planning policies incentivize or require intergenerational components in new housing developments? For example, could Australian cities introduce zoning bonuses for projects that include a mix of age-targeted housing or communal facilities that benefit the wider community? In a housing crisis, is it time to prioritize social outcomes (like reduced loneliness or age diversity) alongside sheer housing supply?
Affordability vs. Profit: Can a project like The New Standard genuinely serve lower-income seniors or young people, or will it inevitably cater mainly to affluent demographics? If rents need to be premium to cover amenities, what mechanisms (subsidies, cross-subsidy, partnerships) could ensure inclusivity? Conversely, are investors willing to accept slightly moderated returns in exchange for measurable social impact or does this model show they don’t have to?
Design and Operations: How do we balance privacy and community? In an intergenerational building, what design strategies best prevent noise/conflict between lively young adults and quieter seniors, while still encouraging interaction? And operationally, what training or staffing is needed to manage such a diverse resident mix (e.g. conflict resolution, programming that appeals across ages)? Are there risks of one group dominating spaces and how to mitigate that?
Cultural Shift: How do we overcome societal biases or preferences for age-segregated living? Many seniors worry about safety or noise with young neighbors; young folks might assume living near “elders” means a boring life. What marketing or initial community-building practices can dispel these notions? Do we need a broader cultural shift to see intergenerational living as normal and desirable akin to how sustainability went from niche to mainstream?
Scaling and Replication: If one New Standard project succeeds, how do we replicate it? Would it require a particular size or location (e.g. inner-city vs suburban)? Could the model work in different cultural contexts or smaller towns, not just big cities? And what role might government or large institutions (like universities or healthcare providers) play in scaling this for instance, co-locating aged care services or student housing with such developments?
Metrics of Success: How should we measure the success of intergenerational housing? Beyond occupancy and financial ROI, what KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) matter? Reduced loneliness indices, health outcomes, resident retention, cross-age interaction frequency, community engagement outside the building? Establishing clear metrics could strengthen the case for support and investment.
These questions underscore that implementing The New Standard touches economics, governance, design, and human behavior. The roundtable discussion is an opportunity to interrogate the concept from all these angles. The vision of an intergenerational urban village is compelling, but its execution must be scrutinized and refined by expert input. Ultimately, the goal is not to declare this model a panacea, but to open minds to new possibilities for housing that better reflect the way we want to live as a connected society.
Australia’s housing future can be more than a story of units and interest rates it can be a story of rebuilding community. As we consider The New Standard, we invite all stakeholders to think boldly: how might we fund, legislate, design, and manage places that heal some of the divides in our society? In confronting both a housing affordability emergency and an epidemic of loneliness, perhaps the solution to each can be found in the other a truly intergenerational approach where housing is not just shelter, but a platform for living together.
(Real-world examples that demonstrate elements of The New Standard model, offered as evidence and inspiration. Local and global cases span co-living, senior co-housing, intergenerational communities, and creative clubs.)
A. Co-Living – The Collective Old Oak (London, UK)
Profile: Opened in 2016, The Collective Old Oak became a landmark for co-living as one of the world’s largest purpose-built co-living developments. Located in West London, it offers 546 residential units (mix of studios and en-suite bedrooms in shared flats) alongside 1,500 m² of shared amenities . Designed by PLP Architecture, it consists of two interconnected buildings around a multi-story central atrium “hub” of communal spaces . The design’s guiding concept was a “vertical village” integrating living, working, and leisure spaces to foster constant interaction among the 500+ residents.
Amenities & Community: Old Oak’s amenities are notably extensive and innovative. Under one roof, residents have access to a gym and spa, a library, cinema room, games room, co-working areas, a restaurant/bar, laundry facilities, and two rooftop terraces totaling over 700 m² of garden space . Many features are deliberately playful to encourage socializing famously, a “Disco Launderette” where washing machines share space with a mini dance floor and DJ booth, turning laundry time into a party71. Regular community events and workshops are organized by an in-house team; the aim is to provide not just housing but a full lifestyle. Flexible leasing (from short stays up to 12-month contracts) and all-inclusive rent (covering utilities, Wi-Fi, cleaning, concierge) make living easy and attract a transient, sociable demographic . The target market was young professionals and postgraduate students drawn to the idea of a plug and play community marketing dubbed it a “new hub for urban professionals” in London.
Outcomes: The Collective Old Oak quickly achieved high occupancy (reportedly around 97% in its early years) and garnered international attention as a template for co-living at scale. Residents traded off smaller private quarters for a rich array of facilities and an instant social network a tradeoff many found worthwhile, as evidenced by strong demand and positive resident feedback. The project achieved premium rents per square foot (due to the amenity package), yet for individuals it could be cost saving compared to renting an equivalent studio and paying separately for gym, utilities, etc. 26 27 Importantly for investors, Old Oak demonstrated that co-living assets could command significant value: in 2022, The Collective sold the Old Oak building for approximately $115 million. Marketing of the sales reportedly drew 10 competitive offers13 , signaling institutional confidence. The sale price reflected not just the bricks and mortar, but the higher NOI generated by the co-living model and its unique position in the market. Old Oak’s success has since inspired numerous co-living ventures globally. For The New Standard, it provides proof that young renters will embrace communal living if done with design flair and operational excellence and that such projects can be financially viable and even highly profitable. The lesson is that community-driven housing can achieve both strong social outcomes (combatting loneliness, building networks) and solid financial performance, aligning with the model’s dual goals.
B. Senior Co-Housing – Agorahaverne (Slagelse, Denmark)
Profile: Agorahaverne (a name blending “Agora”, public gathering space, and “Haverne” gardens in Danish) is a pilot senior co-housing project developed by Tetris A/S with Sangberg Architects. Opened in 2020 in Slagelse, Denmark, it’s the first of what is planned to be a series of community-centric housing sites for adults 50+ across the country . The design was driven by the idea of creating an interactive, green “village” for older residents, rather than a traditional retirement home.
Design Features: The development comprises multiple 1–3 story residential blocks arranged around a large covered central atrium and outdoor square . Each block contains about 12 apartments (2-3 bedrooms each, 50–85 m²) which are relatively compact but private. The construction uses sustainable cross-laminated timber (CLT) modules, giving units a modern Scandinavian aesthetic and eco-friendly footprint . What sets Agorahaverne apart is the emphasis on shared spaces: at the heart is the atrium essentially an indoor garden and community room that serves as a meeting point sheltered from Denmark’s cold climate. Surrounding it are communal facilities like a large kitchen and dining area, workshop spaces for hobbies, lounges, and of course the eponymous gardens (greenhouses, vegetable patches, flower beds) where residents can collaborate in gardening 28. These communal areas are intentionally central and inviting, encouraging residents to come out of their private flats and engage with neighbours daily whether that’s sharing a meal, tending plants, or organizing a game night.
Community & Operations: Agorahaverne is not an aged-care facility; residents live independently and range from active 50-somethings to mid-70s. However, the community-centric design is meant to provide mutual support. The idea is that neighbours naturally look out for each other (e.g. noticing if someone hasn’t come out in a while and checking in). The communal kitchen is often cited as the “heart” residents voluntarily cook and eat together a few times a week, forging strong social bonds. The project also sometimes brings in local community for example, hosting events open to other seniors in town, thereby mixing the wider community with residents. As a co-housing model, decisions about communal life are made collectively by the residents (with facilitation from a management team for property upkeep). This empowerment is key: seniors have agency and avoid the feeling of institutionalization. Early reports indicate residents feel a renewed sense of purpose and camaraderie, combating the loneliness that many experienced in more conventional housing 29 . Denmark’s societal context, which highly values collective living models, has embraced Agorahaverne; plans are underway to replicate it in other cities, adapting the exact form but keeping the essence of shared indoor/outdoor living for the elderly.
Relevance: For the New Standard, Agorahaverne demonstrates that older adults are open to (and greatly benefit from) living in community-oriented environments when given the opportunity. Rather than the common assumption that seniors only want seclusion or quiet, many thrive with daily social interaction and activities if privacy is also respected in balance. It shows the importance of design: by clustering homes around shared gardens and facilities, social interaction becomes a default, not an effort. The project also offers insights on the types of amenities seniors enjoy e.g. green spaces, workshops, and cozy gathering spots often trump flashy pools or golf courses of traditional retirement villages. Furthermore, Agorahaverne’s success in Denmark (a country noted for strong social welfare and high standards of living) suggests that co-housing can be a mainstream option, not just a niche or hippie commune idea. The takeaway is that community by design can significantly improve seniors’ quality of life, and that there is demand for such models. The New Standard’s senior co-housing pillar builds on these lessons, aiming to adapt them to an urban, mixed-generation context. The core principle remains aging need not mean isolation, architecture and community planning can keep elders integrated in society.
C. Intergenerational Communities – Humanitas Deventer (Netherlands) & Bridge Meadows (USA)
Humanitas (Deventer, NL): Humanitas is a long-term care and nursing home in Deventer that gained international fame around 2014 for an innovative intergenerational housing arrangement. Confronted with some vacant units in their facility and observing the struggles of local students with housing costs, Humanitas’ director, Gea Sijpkes, extended an offer: young university students could live at the nursing home rent-free, in exchange for spending 30 hours a month being “good neighbours” to the elderly residents. This included activities like simply socializing, helping with email or technology, cooking or sharing meals, and celebrating events together. Up to six students lived on-site at any time, effectively becoming part of the community. The result was a remarkable cultural exchange the student’s brought energy, music, and outside world engagement into the home, while the elders provided mentorship, life stories, and a surrogate family environment for the youths 19. Media stories described how the students would routinely drop in for chats, teach the seniors to use Skype or social media, or wheel them over to a local pub injecting vibrancy and breaking the monotony of institutional life. Humanitas also hosts public cultural events (exhibitions, performances) and even shares a site with a daycare for disabled children, further interweaving ages . The program quickly drew praise as a win-win model: it tackled two issues at once (youth housing affordability and elder loneliness) and did so without significant extra cost the “payment” was social time. The intergenerational bonds formed were profound; both parties reported high satisfaction, and it humanized the atmosphere of care. Humanitas’ story went viral globally and inspired similar experiments in other countries (e.g. a care home in Lyon, France adopted a similar student residency program).
Lesson: Humanitas vividly demonstrates the power of purposeful intergenerational integration. It took a setting often associated with isolation and transformed it by injecting youth not as employees or volunteers on shifts, but as genuine co-residents and friends. For The New Standard, the scale and context differ (we are not a nursing home, and our seniors are independent), but the underlying insight is key: when younger and older live side by side and interact naturally, it breaks down age stereotypes and significantly improves quality of life40 . The laughter and energy of youth had measurable impact on the elders’ happiness (staff noted fewer clinical issues related to loneliness), and students gained empathy and unique friendships. The takeaway is to design opportunities for such interactions e.g. shared lounges, intergenerational activities rather than segregating amenities by age. The New Standard can emulate this by ensuring, for instance, that co-living and co-housing residents mingle in the club and common areas, or even by formal programs like a “rent credit” for young residents who spend volunteer hours with older ones (a page from Humanitas’ book). This case also hints at potential partnerships universities or aged care providers might be intrigued to collaborate with or support an intergenerational living project due to the mutual benefits seen here.
Bridge Meadows (Portland, OR, USA): Bridge Meadows is a unique intentional community founded in 2011 in Oregon, USA, centred around an intergenerational solution to two social challenges: the foster care system and senior isolation. It comprises 9 family homes (for foster or adoptive families who are providing permanent homes to foster children) and 27 apartments for low-income seniors, all built on one campus with shared community facilities . The model works as a “functional family”: seniors (age 55+) who choose to live there agree to volunteer 10 hours per week of their time to support the foster families and children . In practice, seniors become “honorary grandparents” they might babysit to give parents respite, tutor kids with schoolwork, cook meals, or simply be a stable adult presence for children who have experienced trauma . In exchange, the seniors receive deeply affordable housing (subsidized rent) and, perhaps more valuably, a profound sense of purpose. The community includes a community centre where all residents gather for meetings, celebrations, and services (there are on-site caseworkers and counsellors for the families). Outdoor spaces are communal, designed for kids to play and elders to sit together. The entire project was supported by a coalition of nonprofits and government housing funds, given its social mission.
Outcomes: Bridge Meadows has shown remarkable results. For the children (many of whom had unstable foster placements prior), the permanence and community support has led to improved school performance and emotional stability. Sibling groups who might otherwise be split up get adopted together because the families have the extra help to manage. Foster/adoptive parents report higher retention and lower stress the adage “it takes a village to raise a child” is literally implemented, preventing caregiver burnout 26 96. For the seniors, they report reductions in loneliness and better health, crediting the community with giving them “a reason to get up in the morning.” The interdependence creates a tight-knit extended family feel; one senior described it as “having dozens of grandchildren to love and, they love you back”. The success of the Portland site has led to expansion: additional Bridge Meadows communities have been built in other Oregon cities, and the concept was inspired by an earlier project called Hope Meadows in Illinois (focused on foster kids and seniors) proving it is replicable.
Lesson: Bridge Meadows exemplifies intentional intergenerational living as a form of social intervention. It’s a more specific model than The New Standard (targeting foster care), but it powerfully illustrates the general principle that every generation has something to offer the other. Seniors become community anchors, contributing time and wisdom; younger families bring energy and a sense of being needed. The structured volunteer commitment is one approach, though in a market-rate project like The New Standard it might be more informal (e.g. encouraged through culture rather than mandated). The key takeaway is that mutual support networks can be built into housing. Even without a formal program, design elements, such as shared gardens, community notice boards, or a skills exchange organized by the community manager can facilitate residents helping each other (from childcare swaps to tech help to wellness check-ins). For investors or backers, Bridge Meadows also shows that such communities can attract diverse funding (public grants, philanthropy due to clear social outcomes). While The New Standard would be a for-profit venture, demonstrating a “Bridge Meadows effect” (where living there yields positive social metrics) could open doors to impact investment or public sector partnerships. In short, Bridge Meadows proves that intergenerational living isn’t just feel-good it tangibly improves lives and addresses costly social issues (like foster care disruptions or elder care) in a humane, community-based way.
D. Creative Community Clubs – Inspirations for The New Standard Club
(A selection of existing private clubs and community hubs that inform the concept of the Creative Members’ Club, showing market appetite for curated lifestyle spaces.)
Soho House (Global): A renowned network of members-only clubs founded in London in 1995, now over 40 locations worldwide. Aimed at creatives and young professionals, Soho Houses blend hospitality and social spaces typically featuring chic restaurants, bars, rooftop pools, lounges, screening rooms and even hotel rooms for overnight stays. The brand proved that bundling experiences under one membership drives strong loyalty: members use it as a home-office hybrid, a place to relax, network, and entertain . With annual fees around A$4,000 in major cities (and long waitlists to join) 36, it’s a commercial success, indicating people will pay a premium for exclusive yet hip community environments. Insight for New Standard: Today’s consumers crave one stop venues for work, leisure, and socializing. A localized version in a residential building can similarly become the “living room” for residents and neighbours, offering convenience and a sense of status/community.
NeueHouse (New York/LA/etc.): An example of a boutique co-working and cultural club. NeueHouse provides design-forward shared workspaces in elegant, often historic buildings, and complements them with a roster of talks, gallery exhibits, film screenings and mixology bars in the evening . It attracts freelancers, startups, and arts industries folks who want more than a generic WeWork, they seek inspiration and networking. Members pay several hundred dollars a month for access. Insight: The concept of daytime co-working that transitions to an evening salon is directly applicable. The New Standard Club can emulate this to maximize usage: a café-lounge that buzzes with laptops by day can host events or a cocktail scene after hours. It underscores that professional space can double as social space, aligning with trends of remote workers seeking community.
The WELL (New York): A wellness-centric private club opened in 2019 in Manhattan, embodying the rise of health as a social/luxury experience. The WELL offers integrative medicine services, a full spa (massages, acupuncture), gym and yoga studios, plus a health-focused café and library for workshops35 . With memberships roughly A$550 per month, it attracted urban professionals investing in preventative health and mindfulness in a chic setting. Insight: Wellness is a major draw. Including high-quality gym/spa facilities and wellness programming in The New Standard not only appeals across ages (from stress relief for young professionals to fitness and therapy for seniors) but provides a revenue source through spa treatments and possibly health practitioner partnerships. It affirms that people increasingly view wellness not just as clinic visits, but as a daily lifestyle to be enjoyed in community.
Habitas (Global/NYC): Starting as an experiential hotel brand, Habitas expanded to club spaces with a focus on global community, art, and music. Habitas NYC (opened 2018 in a converted firehouse) offered an eclectic mix: yoga and meditation room, a recording studio, communal kitchen, and bar merging creative production with socializing . Its design vibe is bohemian yet upscale, targeting socially conscious creatives and travellers. Insight: Habitas shows that even in relatively intimate venues, multi-purpose design can accommodate varied uses (e.g. a meeting room doubles as a music jam space). It encourages The New Standard Club to think flexibly perhaps a makerspace or podcast studio that by night becomes a karaoke room. Also, Habitas’ ethos of inclusivity and storytelling (they emphasize community values) could guide programming that is culturally relevant and engaging for a diverse membership.
Aman Club (New York): An example from the ultra-luxury end. Opened in 2022 as part of the Aman New York hotel, this private club targets the ultra-wealthy with an astronomical price tag: reportedly a US$200,000 initiation fee plus $15,000 annual dues . The Aman Club spans three floors (2,300 m²) including a lavish spa, 20m indoor pool, meditation room, cigar lounge, wine library and exclusive dining areas . It’s essentially a sanctuary for billionaires, offering privacy and top tier service. While far removed from most markets, its launch (and others like Casa Cipriani, Zero Bond in NYC) indicates a resurgence of club culture post-pandemic, as affluent individuals seek controlled environments for networking and leisure . Insight: For The New Standard, Aman reinforces that there’s a strong desire for curated spaces and while our club will be much more accessible, adopting a few luxury touches (e.g. high-end hospitality standards, beautiful design maybe a small number of guest suites to rent out like club hotel rooms38 ) can elevate the experience. It also shows how branding a club as exclusive can significantly boost a property’s cachet. The presence of a members’ club can transform a building’s image in Aman’s case it’s integral to the hotel’s mystique; in The New Standard, the club can similarly be a defining differentiator that commands premium interest in the residences.
Each of these precedents from co-living and co-housing communities to intergenerational experiments and creative clubs provides valuable lessons and validation for The New Standard. They demonstrate that the individual components are not fanciful: young people do choose communal living if it’s well done, seniors do flourish in community-centric environments, generations do support each other when given the chance, and modern urbanites are willing to pay for spaces that offer connection and experience. The innovation of The New Standard is in uniting these elements in one holistic model. By synthesizing what has worked elsewhere, it aspires to create a development that is greater than the sum of its parts a place that redefines urban housing as a source of belonging, creativity, and intergenerational solidarity. The case studies herein serve both as proof points to reassure investors and stakeholders, and as inspiration to continuously refine the concept with best practices from around the world. As this discussion moves forward, these real examples ground our visionary talk in reality: they show that The New Standard is not only aspirational, but achievable and perhaps the time is right for Australia to set a new standard of its own.