It happened in 2024. A co-living space in the heart of the city. A resident —let’s call him James— with two years of shared living under his belt. Everyone knew him: the guy who organized Sunday brunches, who restocked the communal kitchen, who welcomed newcomers with a printed map of the neighborhood. But when I met him, he was burned out. Not from lack of space. From lack of response.
“I talk to everyone in the lounge. They come to my dinners. But no one asks me how I am. They just ask for the Wi-Fi password, complain about the AC, request quieter hours. I give them community, companionship, a sense of home. But do they know me? Do they know my mother was hospitalized last week and I still hosted the barbecue? No. And I can’t say it either. Because the format doesn’t allow it.”
James was in red ZIE: a broken Zone of Equitable Interaction. He subjectivized his neighbors perfectly: he knew who needed silence, who wanted company, who preferred tea over coffee. He intentioned with mastery: designed gatherings that responded to those needs. But he did not retrofeed: he never verified if his care landed as care, nor did he receive care in return. Co-living, as a model, is communal by design but not by default. And that one-directionality, sustained over time, corrodes.
This led me to reread Figueroa’s (2026) paradox of malevolence: not that James harmed, but that the co-living system, by failing to close the circuit of care, generates collateral damage in those who inhabit it. And it made me ask: Why do shared homes lose residents precisely when they most need loyalty? Why do people migrate to smaller flats, to private studios, to spaces where they feel seen?
Co-living culture glorifies the “independent” resident: the one who doesn’t impose, who doesn’t share their struggles, who maintains “distance” from the community. This narrative, apparently mature, hides a trap: it confuses healthy emotional distance with relational isolation. The resident becomes presence without personhood, company that is not accompanied.
But Dasbien Theory is clear: every sustainable relationship requires mutual wellbeing measured by both parties (Figueroa, 2025). And the resident-neighbor relationship, though asymmetrical by lifestyle, is not exempt. The neighbor needs to feel that their presence matters. And the caregiver-resident, to sustain their capacity to care, needs to feel heard in some form.
When this fails, what Figueroa describes as red ZIE through chronic asymmetry emerges: the caregiver exhausts their reserve without recharge. The recipient satisfies their immediate need (comfort, convenience) but builds no relational fidelity: there is no bond that retains them when another option appears.
James had neighbors, but no community. He had residents, but no bond.
Based on cases like James, I propose detectable signals before the resident leaves or the space empties:
Table
| Symptom | Indicator | What the space doesn’t see |
|---|---|---|
| Passive community | Full common areas but no conversation; residents who share space but not lives | The caregiver’s effort lands as consumption, not connection; no feedback of reception |
| “Automatic” host | Perfect events, correct ambiance, but no emotional variation, no risk, no exposure | The host has protected themselves from potential harm of exposure, but also from potential care of response |
| Flight to private rooms | Residents who “live” in the building but never leave their units; interaction that doesn’t return to the shared space | The common area doesn’t close the circuit; feedback happens elsewhere, doesn’t feed the primary bond |
James had all three. But management only measured: occupancy rates, rent paid, amenities used.
In another space, similar in resources but different in culture, I applied a DASBIEN protocol adapted to communal living:
Not a satisfaction survey (“Do you like our events?”), but open conversation: “When do you use the lounge? What does it allow you to do? What did you need today that this space gave you?”
Answers that don’t appear in metrics: “Your kitchen keeps me company while I call my family overseas,” “The rooftop calms me after a bad workday,” “I met someone here who became my closest friend.” Information that changes the tone: the host no longer “provides amenities,” but accompanies a concrete life.
With the team, we designed small but named changes: a “resident response” minute where someone shares a win or a struggle; a weekly question that the community manager asks visibly of themselves; spaces where a resident can say “I’m not okay today” without breaking the social contract.
This is not co-living as group therapy. It is adjusted intentionality: the resident can be a person without ceasing to be professional, and that personhood makes mutual care visible.
At every gathering, the same question: “What do you think? How was this for you?” And crucially: respond in the moment. Not just acknowledge, but converse, name who spoke, thank them, adjust the next event based on what was heard.
The result: in six months, real interaction (conversations, shared meals, friendships formed) rose significantly. Not because total occupancy grew, but because those who were there became a community. And James, in this space, reported: “Now I know that when I organize something, someone responds. It’s not shouting into the void.”
Designate a resident who follows the community life closely, with direct contact to the host: not as an inspector, but as a wellbeing verifier: “Is this serving you? Who else is it serving?”
In every community event, thirty seconds where someone can say something of themselves: not intimate confession, but exposure of personhood. “I woke up tired today,” “My coffee spilled,” “I’m happy because…” This allows mutual subjectivization: the neighbor sees there is a person, and can respond as a person.
Document not just occupancy, but detected interactions of care: who stayed to help clean up, who wrote that “this saved my week,” who introduced two residents who became friends. Name this in the community chat. Make the invisible visible.
James left that first co-living space. Now he lives in a small studio, with three close friends he met elsewhere. He tells me: “Those three ask me how I am. They know me. When I say ‘I’m struggling,’ someone asks ‘what happened?'”
The first space lost him not for lack of amenities. For lack of ZIE. For believing that co-living is transactional by nature, when in reality it is transactional by habit. For confusing professionalism with isolation.
Dasbien Theory offers an exit. Not by demanding that co-living become therapy, but relationship: subjectivize the neighbor as a subject who needs to be heard, intention spaces where the host can also be a person, retrofeed systematically to close the circuit of care.
The spaces that want to be real companionship —not just shared square footage— need to incorporate this dimension. Before another James moves to a private studio, and before the community fragments into solitary consumers of convenience.
Nestled in the bustling Singapore, Livhola is a co-living space crafted for those who seek comfort, convenience, and community.
© 2024 Livehola. All Rights Reserved