Italian Real Estate: The Rise of Co-Living Spaces

Published on October 3, 2025 and written by Cyril Jarnias

Italy and the Co-Living Space Revolution

Italy, a country of centuries-old traditions and breathtaking landscapes, now finds itself at the forefront of one of the most innovative real estate phenomena of our era: co-living spaces.

These shared living spaces, which combine community and flexibility, respond to a new quest for work-life balance, exacerbated by contemporary urban life challenges.

By integrating modern amenities and shared services in communal environments, these places meet the expectations of a generation seeking dynamic community while reducing their ecological footprint.

As the Italian real estate market undergoes significant transformations, this revolutionary concept is redefining not only how Italians inhabit their cities, but also how they interact with each other.

The Soaring Rise of Co-Living Spaces in Italy

The soaring rise of co-living spaces in Italy is explained by the combination of high urban rents, demand for rental flexibility, and a search for community among young professionals and expatriates, supported by supply that has significantly accelerated since 2020. This dynamic fits into a broader trend of the global co-living market, experiencing strong growth driven by urbanization, housing costs, and flexible lifestyles.

Key Socio-Economic Reasons

• Pressure from urban rents and constrained purchasing power, favoring more affordable all-inclusive solutions than individual studios.
• Search for flexibility (short leases, furnished housing, integrated services), particularly attractive for young professionals, interns, remote workers, and expatriates.
• Need for community and shared services (communal kitchens, lounge spaces, coworking) that strengthens the sense of belonging and social interactions.
• Global market trend: co-living attracts for its accessibility and social life in major cities and student hubs, which is also reflected in Italy.

Statistics and Supply Dynamics

• Since 2020, “co-living supply” has jumped from “less than 2%” to “over 22%” on platforms and segments tracked by serviced apartment operators, signaling rapid expansion of inventory and its visibility to mobile demand in Europe, including Italy.
• Globally, the sector shows a sustained growth trajectory (CAGR 2025–2034: 15.4%), driven by major metropolises and student markets, a context that also stimulates operators present in Italy.
• In Italy, the supply covers furnished private rooms and shared spaces with services (Wi-Fi, cleaning), targeting students, digital nomads, and young professionals, with pricing often competitive against individual rentals.

Particularly Affected Italian Cities

• Milan: strong appeal for young professionals, students, and international workers, tight rental market, and tech/design ecosystem conducive to flexible formats.
• Rome: hub for expatriates and international students, demand for short leases and included services.
• Turin, Bologna, Florence: university hubs with high turnover and preference for furnished community solutions.

Impact of COVID-19

The pandemic accelerated the adoption of co-living: rise of hybrid/remote work, need for communal spaces and community, and price/quality trade-off against traditional rentals.

Operators integrated/expanded coworking spaces, improved digital connectivity and services via apps, responding to new post-pandemic expectations.

Implications for the Italian Real Estate Market

• Yield/investor attractiveness: sustained demand for managed, furnished, and community products aligns with a global sector growth trend, strengthening the investment thesis for alternative housing in urban areas.
• Urban transformations: repositioning of assets (existing residential, student residences, serviced apartments) towards co-living models with common spaces and services, and competitive pressure forcing other segments to integrate shared spaces and digital tools.
• Effects on rental supply: increase in flexible furnished inventory, improving fluidity for professional and international mobility, and contributing to diversifying the housing stock in city centers.

Table – Key Factors and Expected Effects

Element	Observation in Italy	Effect on the Market
Urban housing cost	High for studios/1-bedroom	Shift towards all-inclusive and co-living offers
Sought flexibility	Short leases, furnished, services	Optimized occupancy rates and turnover for operators
Community/experience	Shared spaces and events	Higher retention and perceived value
Post-COVID	Hybrid work and socializing	Addition of coworking spaces, resident apps
Global trend	Strongly growing market	Strengthening of investor interest

Examples of Operator Responses

• Integration of communal kitchens and living rooms, on-site coworking, competitive pricing vs. private apartments.
• Centralized management including Wi-Fi and cleaning, screening of roommates and individual contracts to reduce entry friction.

Points to Note

Consolidated statistics specific to the exact number of co-living spaces opened in Italy per year remain fragmented; however, available indicators show rapid expansion of supply since 2020 and increased visibility in major Italian cities.

The Appeal of Upscale Shared Housing for Young Italians

Young Italians are increasingly attracted to upscale shared housing because it offers a compromise between cost, flexibility, and quality of life: it allows living in central neighborhoods at a price lower than a classic studio, while providing access to “all-inclusive” services and a structured community.

Economic Factors:

• High cost of living in major cities: in Milan and Rome, rental pressure pushes room prices upward (annual increase of 5–6% in these markets), reinforcing interest in cost sharing rather than individual rental.
• Price/amenities trade-off: upscale rooms with private bathroom or premium amenities can reach around €900–950 in Milan, often remaining cheaper than an empty studio with comparable amenities, especially once utilities and furniture are considered.
• Budget transparency: the “co-living” model bundles rent, utilities, internet, and sometimes cleaning into a single package, limiting “bad surprises” and initial setup costs.

Social Factors:

• Search for community and quick integration: shared housing facilitates creating connections in a new city and particularly attracts mobile 23–35 year olds (young professionals, expatriates, freelancers), with nearly “all-inclusive” houses and very high occupancy rates.
• Networking and shared life: common spaces (living room, kitchen, coworking) and internal events strengthen the sense of belonging, while preserving privacy through private rooms.

Cultural Factors and Evolving Mindsets:

• Flexibility over ownership: a more mobile and connected generation prioritizes ready-to-live, furnished, and reversible solutions, rather than purchase or rigid long-term leases.
• Value of use and services: access to modern amenities (high-speed wifi, laundry, workspaces) and renovated housing takes precedence over owning personal furniture or appliances.
• Normalization of “co-living spaces”: the hybrid format between student residence, hotel, and shared housing becomes a standard for starting a new city life without administrative friction.

Concrete Examples in Italy:

Milan:

• Price range: upscale offers with private shower or rooftop up to ~€950; in comparison, a well-located empty studio ends up more expensive once furnished and with utilities, hence the interest in “turnkey” offers.
• Location: proximity to metro, campuses, and business districts, reducing commute times and increasing appeal for professionals and international students.

Major Student Cities:

• Seasonal pressure: over 400,000 students concentrate in major cities, contributing to rental tension around university hubs and supporting demand for shared rooms.
• Price dynamics: notable increases in Naples (+6.7% year-over-year), Rome (+6.3%), and Milan (+5.3%), making shared housing a lever for access to sought-after neighborhoods.

Useful Recent Statistics:

• +6.7% for rooms in Naples; +6.3% in Rome; +5.3% in Milan year-over-year, according to a market study on shared rooms in Italy.
• In Milan, some premium offers reach ~€950 with amenities, remaining competitive against a comparable empty studio.
• “All-inclusive” co-living houses targeting 23–35 year olds show occupancy rates close to 100% in markets where deployed, illustrating sustained demand for this format.

How This Fits into the Broader Co-Living Trend in Italy:

• A “plug-and-play” product for Erasmus students, recent graduates, freelancers, and employees on assignment, combining contract flexibility, shared services, and premium location.
• A professional management model (renovated houses, included services, simplified contracts) that moves away from informal shared housing and brings shared living closer to hotel standards.
• Structural response to urban costliness and increasing mobility, optimizing access to the city without sacrificing comfort or sociability.

Comparative Summary Table

Criterion	Upscale Shared Housing	Individual Studio (equivalent location/amenities)
Total monthly price	Package often lower than a studio once utilities and furniture included	Higher after adding utilities, internet, furniture
Flexibility	Short contracts, simplified entry process	More rigid contracts, deposit/setup fees
Services	Furnished, internet, cleaning/common spaces, sometimes coworking	Variable, often unfurnished, services to add
Community	Strong, 23–35 year old network, quick integration	Weak, potential isolation
Location	Proximity to metro/campuses/business districts	More frequent location/size compromise

Points to Note and Limitations:

• Rent volatility: annual increases in major cities can also make rooms more expensive, despite cost sharing.
• Availability: high demand in central neighborhoods can reduce choice during back-to-school periods, requiring more advance planning.
• Standardization of experiences: professional management brings comfort and predictability, but may homogenize lifestyles and reduce customization autonomy.

Shared Spaces and Digital Community: An Innovative Lifestyle

Co-living spaces are experiencing strong growth in Italy because they offer a direct response to rising urban living costs, allowing sharing of rent, utilities, and services while accessing central locations and quality common spaces. They are particularly popular among young professionals, students, remote workers, and digital nomads, who seek flexible, furnished, all-inclusive, and socially engaging formulas.

• Main reasons for growth in Italy:
  • Economic accessibility: cost sharing (rent, utilities, maintenance) and private or shared room options, making desirable cities more affordable.
  • Urban quality of life: common spaces (kitchens, living rooms, coworking) promoting collaboration, encounters, and daily community.
  • Flexibility and simplicity: individual leases, furnished housing, included services, suited to professional mobility and temporary stays.
  • Attractiveness for Millennials and Gen Z: search for experiences, networks, and active communities rather than material possessions.
  • Urban real estate tension: migration to centers for employment and studies, scarcity of supply and rising rents, which co-living helps cushion.

Shared spaces improve urban quality of life by creating environments where social interaction is integrated into daily life architecture: communal kitchens, living rooms, and coworking spaces structure neighborhood routines, facilitate mutual aid and reduce isolation, while offering shared amenities more performant than in an individual housing unit at the same budget.

• Effects on belonging, interaction, and well-being:
  • Increased sense of belonging thanks to common rituals and diversity of profiles, with social bonds forming quickly and lasting.
  • Facilitated social interaction through dedicated spaces and events (coworking, living rooms, dinners), stimulating mutual aid, informal mentoring, and networking.
  • Reduced living costs via sharing (rent, services, amenities), essential for accessing central neighborhoods.
  • Increased well-being through decreased loneliness, availability of suitable workspaces, and structured community life.

Concrete Examples in Italy Illustrating the Trend and Its Benefits:

• Dolce Vita Coliving, Vallo di Nera (Umbria)
  • Enhancement of a medieval village with coworking adjacent to a 13th-century church, community activities, shared meals, and all-inclusive offers strengthening cohesion and local quality of life.
• Montino Coliving, Northern Pre-Alps – Lago Maggiore
  • Ultra-fast Wi-Fi (Starlink), multiple workspaces, common dinners, yoga, workshops, and outings; testimonials highlighting lasting friendships, a setting conducive to productivity, and a strong sense of community.
• Reference networks and platforms
  • List of Italian co-livings oriented towards young professionals, students, and remote workers, highlighting affordability, individual leases, and shared living frameworks that facilitate collaborations and new friendships.
  • Global market in strong growth (CAGR ~13.5% 2025–2030), driven by urban living costs, demand for common spaces, and relational expectations of new generations—trends fully visible in major Italian cities.

Table — Key Benefits of Shared Spaces for Urban Life

Benefit	Mechanism	Effect for Residents
Economy	Sharing rent/utilities/services	Access to desirable neighborhoods at lower cost
Social	Common spaces + events	Belonging, network, reduced isolation
Professional	Coworking + high-speed Wi-Fi	Productivity, collaborations, mutual aid
Well-being	Community rituals, activities	Quality of life, work-life balance

List of Community Practices Fostering a Digital Community:

• Weekly programming: shared dinners, skill workshops, local outings.
• Infrastructures: living rooms, communal kitchens, coworking dedicated to work and encounters.
• Digital tools: group messaging, shared calendars, resource and professional contact sharing.
• Welcoming culture: selection of compatible profiles, clear house rules, inclusive atmosphere to accelerate integration.

The Impact of Co-Living Spaces on the Italian Real Estate Market

“Co-living spaces” have increased the flexibility of urban supply and shifted part of the demand from young professionals and students away from the traditional rental stock, contributing to upward pressure on rents in centers and a restructuring of real estate products in Italy. This rise fits into a dynamic where renting gains ground over buying, driven by generational preferences and more flexible residential models.

Demand and Supply

• Rental demand has strongly progressed over the last decade, with 1.8 million rental contracts in 2018 (versus 700,000 in 1990), creating fertile ground for flexible formulas like co-living.
• Traditional long-term contracts are declining in relative share (44% in 2018 versus 55% in 2017), while “agreed” and student leases are increasing, segments frequently used by co-living operators.
• Globally, demand driven by Millennials and Gen Z for furnished housing, included services, and flexible leases supports the rise of co-living; however, progression is hampered by concerns about privacy and security.
• Co-living supply concentrates in major cities and well-served neighborhoods, with private room + common spaces formulas, targeting students, young professionals, digital nomads, and interns.

Effects on Prices and Market Structure

• In the 10 largest Italian cities, residential prices recently progressed on average by 2.5% in a context of recovering transactions and rental demand exceeding supply, indicating structural tension where co-living captures part of the unsatisfied demand from the traditional market.
• By diverting a fraction of the stock (or new projects) towards higher turnover and service products, co-living can contribute to scarcity of classic long-term supply in certain central micro-markets, supporting “prime” rents and valuation of assets suited for collective use.
• Globally, regulatory and compliance constraints (zoning, safety, standards) weigh on operating costs, which can be reflected in pricing and limit overly rapid expansion.

Economic Impacts in Major Cities

Rome

• Attracts student population and international young professionals; co-living facilitates access to furnished short/medium-term housing, supporting urban service economy and local spending.
• In high-demand sectors, conversion towards flexible formats can accentuate pressure on traditional supply, reinforcing budget segmentation.

Milan

• Qualified employment ecosystem and high professional mobility: co-living meets needs for rapid turnover, favoring attractiveness for talents and companies, and improving occupancy rates of repositioned assets.
• In a market where rental demand exceeds supply, these products participate in rent increases in central and well-connected areas, while accelerating renovation of obsolete buildings.

Naples

• More heterogeneous market: co-living can catalyze requalification of targeted neighborhoods and formalization of furnished supply against informal rentals, with impacts on local economy and “hybrid” hospitality.
• Price effects remain dependent on depth of supply and local rules; general rental tension supports viability of flexible formats.

Regulatory Framework and Points of Caution

• Operators face zoning requirements, building codes, fire safety, and usage compliance that structure profitability (CAPEX/OPEX costs) and opening pace, a regular brake on expansion.
• The rise of “agreed” and student leases underlines the importance of a contractual framework adapted to target audiences; evolution of contractual practices affects the balance between rental stability and flexibility.
• As the segment grows, tightening of local rules (density, usage destinations, coexistence with short-term rentals) can influence location and formats offered.

Testimonials and Experience Illustrations

• Institutional investor (synthesis of sector interviews): “Sustained demand from 20–35 year olds and faster turnover stabilize occupancy rates; in return, regulatory compliance and community management increase fixed costs”.
• Young professional resident in Milan: “The flexible lease, included amenities, and community allowed me to settle quickly, even if lack of privacy and noise during peak hours are the main drawbacks”.
• Rental market analyst: “The shift of part of demand from ordinary contracts towards more flexible and student formulas has redrawn the rent map in cities with high housing concentration”.

Table – Compared Trends

Segment	Demand	Supply	Prices/Rents	Risks/Constraints
Traditional urban housing	Strong, but constrained by budget	Insufficient in centers	Sustained increase in major cities	Supply tension, competition from flexible formats
Co-living	Growing (youth, mobile)	Expanding in targeted way (well-served centers)	“All-inclusive” pricing, premium per m² but optimized per room	Compliance, safety, privacy, evolving local framework

Points of Attention for Decision-Makers

• Balance incentives for supply creation (rehabilitation, clear standards) and protection of traditional stock to contain rent escalation in hyper-centers.
• Promote hybrid models (student/young professional co-living) with regulated leases to stabilize residential pathways.
• Monitor impact on urban mix and access for middle-income households, especially in Rome, Milan, Naples, where insufficient rental supply is already evident.

Co-living in Italy is establishing itself as a market response to rental supply shortage and youth mobility, reconfiguring demand to the detriment of part of traditional rental, supporting valuations in centers, but exposed to regulatory and social acceptability challenges.