Shared housing has been supplied due to the recent increase in single-person households and the emergence of housing poverty problems for young people. However, due to the nature of shared housing that shares space with neighbors, privacy problems and...
Shared housing has been supplied due to the recent increase in single-person households and the emergence of housing poverty problems for young people. However, due to the nature of shared housing that shares space with neighbors, privacy problems and housing management problems have arisen. Young single-person households tend to prefer work and various cultural activities other than residential functions in their homes due to COVID-19, and Co-living House has begun to be introduced in Korea to solve such problems. Against this background, this study focuses on two questions, such as what is the effect on housing satisfaction for residents of Co-living House and whether there is a difference in housing satisfaction between private and public supply Co-living House. The study targets were analyzed for Mangrove Sungin , Share one Yeoksam 2, Share one Sillim, Jangan Life, and Anam Life. First, the effect of Co-living House on residential satisfaction was analyzed. First, looking at the personal characteristics of the study target site, the majority of women in their 20s were in all five target sites. As a result of analyzing the average difference in residential satisfaction of the five target sites, the difference in residential satisfaction according to the target site was not significant, and the average difference in residential satisfaction according to the layout by floor was not significant. However, the average difference in residential satisfaction according to the supply entity was found to have higher residential satisfaction in private supply, and the difference in the effect on residential satisfaction by supply entity was analyzed. As a result of analyzing
- 93 -
the impact of living houses on residential satisfaction, it was found that access to schools and work had a significant effect on residential satisfaction in terms of location characteristics, and monthly rent and management fee levels had a significant effect in economic characteristics. In terms of operation and management characteristics, the more satisfied the protection of personal privacy, the higher the residential satisfaction, and in terms of physical characteristics, the more satisfied the size of personal space and the walking path, the higher the residential satisfaction. As for the characteristics of neighborhood relations, the overall satisfaction with the neighborhood relationship increased, and in terms of personal characteristics, the more residents who lived on a monthly rent than those who rented a living house.
Due to the nature of the Co-living House, which supplies monthly rent cheaper than ordinary houses, residents who previously lived on monthly rent seem to be satisfied with monthly rent and administrative expenses. As a result of the analysis of the impact of housing satisfaction by supply entity, residents of Co-living House supplied by private companies were more satisfied with the physical characteristics of Co-living House than with location and economic characteristics. The policy implications derived from the analysis of the impact on the residential satisfaction of the living house are as follows.
First, it was found that Co-living house residents were satisfied with the low monthly rent, management fee, and accessibility to schools and work places, and that personal privacy was protected and the size of personal space and the use of various shared spaces. The Co-living House, which will be supplied in the future, is limited to Seoul, so there is a need to be supplied at a low monthly rent to various regions rather than to supply it. In addition, it is necessary to pay attention to the size of personal space and privacy protection, and to configure a shared space with various functions. Second, Co-living House supplied by the private sector was not cheaper than Co-living House supplied by the public, but the functions and sizes of various shared spaces were significant in residential satisfaction. This means that the Co-living House to be supplied in the future needs to be designed in harmony so that only shared spaces are emphasized or monthly rent is not emphasized by combining the location of the public supply Co-living House and the advantages of low monthly rent and various shared spaces and personal privacy protection.