首页 500强 活动 榜单 商业 科技 领导力 专题 品牌中心
杂志订阅

又一家共享居住行业先驱倒闭了

SEAMUS WEBSTER
2024-06-12

在申请破产之前,COMMON LIVING曾是美国最大的共享居住公司之一,但一些租户抱怨公司管理层沟通不畅,且反应迟钝。

文本设置
小号
默认
大号
Plus(0条)

图片来源:GETTY IMAGES

Common Living公司于2015年在布鲁克林成立,是一种新型住宅物业管理模式的先驱:它不是出租整个单元,而是将房间出租给个人。水电费、WiFi网费和清洁费与租金捆绑在一起,而且公寓内家具齐全。

从那时起,共享居住在美国和全球各地迅速流行起来,但Common Living作为这种模式的先驱者,其发展历程却在上月底戛然而止,因为该公司宣布申请破产保护并清算其资产。该公司在美国12个城市经营5,200套公寓,现在它也成为越来越多倒闭的共享居住运营商的一员。这些运营商的破产,让人们对这种模式未来的可行性产生了质疑。

2023 年,Common Living与总部位于柏林的竞争对手Habyt合并,成立的联合实体在十几个国家运营着3万多套住宅。Habyt首席执行官卢卡·博沃尼表示,关闭Common虽然令人遗憾,但清算Common的资产将使Habyt实现盈利。

博沃尼对商业地产资讯网站Bisnow表示:“这个决定虽然不是我们所希望的,但它将使Habyt集团的其余业务更具财务灵活性,更有能力加速增长和创造价值。”

Common的数千套住宅将由Outpost Club接管。Outpost Club是采用这一模式中的另一个巨头,经营着纽约市40栋大楼的约1,500套住宅。该公司CEO谢尔盖·斯塔罗斯汀对《财富》杂志表示,在Common申请破产之前,Outpost Club已经接管了7处物业的管理权,Outpost的目标是Common 50%的库存。

在疫情期间,许多共享居住公司纷纷倒闭,而Common却在积极扩大其资产组合并进行融资。2020年至2022年期间,它收购了约5,000套住宅,到2023年,它已获得了超过1.1亿美元风险投资。但在接受《纽约时报》采访时,该公司创始人布拉德·哈格里夫斯拒绝就Common是否盈利发表评论。

Outpost Club的斯塔罗斯汀表示,他认为,Common的财务困境正是源于推动该公司增长的大量资金,因为投资推动该公司在纳什维尔、渥太华和芝加哥等市场快速扩张。

斯塔罗斯汀对《财富》杂志表示:“Common需要在很多地方保持快速发展。”他解释称,在一个新的市场中获得一处房产,就需要建立全新的员工队伍和营销业务。 “如果将这个数字乘以20……这个过程需要投入巨额成本。我认为,扩大这种业务的规模,需要更多的时间。”

Habyt的CEO博沃尼告诉彭博社,Common的破产与该公司的合同和业务有关,也与利率压力增大有关。

这并不是Outpost第一次介入管理前竞争对手的合同。2019年,Bedly公司倒闭时,Outpost接管了该公司在曼哈顿和新泽西的部分转租协议;2021年,当德国公司Quarters宣布破产时,Outpost也采取了同样的做法。

与Common公司一样,尽管Quarters公司在风险融资方面大获成功,但最终依旧倒闭。2019年,Medici Living Group为其德国子公司融资3亿美元,用于扩张美国业务。

斯塔罗斯汀表示:“风险投资在房地产市场表现不佳,因为我们看到在10个或15个不同市场,需求增长迅速。因此,我认为这些公司之所以失败,是因为它们被要求在许多不同的市场上过快发展,而这在房地产行业是很难做到的。”

克拉拉·阿罗伊夫是共享居住物业买卖和投资平台Co-Living Cashflow公司的CEO。虽然她说本月早些时候有关Common申请破产的消息让她感到不安,但她也表示,考虑到该公司为扩张所投入的资金,这并不奇怪。

阿罗伊夫表示:“如果你进行过风险融资,你会面临快速增长和交付业绩的压力。很多时候,你会被迫增加房间数量、扩大需求或市场,你要在无法实现盈利或承受极高营业成本的情况下保持增长。”阿罗伊夫曾在波士顿创建并经营一家共享居住公司,该公司在疫情期间倒闭。

斯塔罗斯汀对《财富》杂志表示,与其他已经倒闭的著名竞争对手不同,Outpost选择将其业务和扩张计划集中在纽约,因为公司已经在当地建立了员工和营销网络。

疫情是对共享居住模式的严峻考验,由于许多潜在租户不愿与陌生人近距离共同居住,导致一些最大的运营商纷纷倒闭。当Quarters倒闭时,它经营着大约3,000套住宅,并且正在开发另外1,500套住宅。2021年,共享办公公司WeWork的共享居住子公司WeLive,以及英国公司The Collective相继倒闭。 The Collective在申请破产时拥有约10万套住宅。

除了疫情、扩张带来的问题和高利率之外,共享居住公司还必须解决其相对较新的房屋供应方式所特有的问题。许多公司在宣传时,并不把自己当作传统的房东,而是租户和可用房间之间的桥梁。潜在租户不必为寻找室友共同租下一套住宅或者签订一年租约而烦恼。房间单独出租,人们通常只住几个月。但这种不固定、不干涉的方式也导致了一些问题。

2022年,据《野兽日报》报道,Common Living物业的一些租户曾向该公司投诉安全问题、维护不善以及存在潜在危险的住户。一位租户在公寓群聊中发帖说,他要放火烧楼——但文章中引用的住户报告说,Common的响应团队未能以适当或及时的方式沟通或处理情况。

然而,尽管Common和其他竞争者相继倒闭,Co-Living Cashflow的阿罗伊夫和Outpost Club的斯塔罗斯汀表示,他们相信这种商业模式将继续存在。虽然这种模式的发展一波三折,但共享居住这种理念的核心,即灵活便利的房屋供应,在年轻租房者中有着足够多的需求。

阿罗伊夫表示:“年轻人付不起房租,而纽约、波士顿和洛杉矶等地房地产市场的最基本状况,这些数字在短期内不会发生重大变化。但共享居住模式要保持强劲增长,需要解决一个问题,那就是这种商业模式的哪个部分未能发挥作用。”

斯塔罗斯汀表示:“这个行业已经存在。我认为它不会消失。问题只是谁会在这个市场上发展壮大,但市场本身就在那里。”(财富中文网)

翻译:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

Common Living公司于2015年在布鲁克林成立,是一种新型住宅物业管理模式的先驱:它不是出租整个单元,而是将房间出租给个人。水电费、WiFi网费和清洁费与租金捆绑在一起,而且公寓内家具齐全。

从那时起,共享居住在美国和全球各地迅速流行起来,但Common Living作为这种模式的先驱者,其发展历程却在上月底戛然而止,因为该公司宣布申请破产保护并清算其资产。该公司在美国12个城市经营5,200套公寓,现在它也成为越来越多倒闭的共享居住运营商的一员。这些运营商的破产,让人们对这种模式未来的可行性产生了质疑。

2023 年,Common Living与总部位于柏林的竞争对手Habyt合并,成立的联合实体在十几个国家运营着3万多套住宅。Habyt首席执行官卢卡·博沃尼表示,关闭Common虽然令人遗憾,但清算Common的资产将使Habyt实现盈利。

博沃尼对商业地产资讯网站Bisnow表示:“这个决定虽然不是我们所希望的,但它将使Habyt集团的其余业务更具财务灵活性,更有能力加速增长和创造价值。”

Common的数千套住宅将由Outpost Club接管。Outpost Club是采用这一模式中的另一个巨头,经营着纽约市40栋大楼的约1,500套住宅。该公司CEO谢尔盖·斯塔罗斯汀对《财富》杂志表示,在Common申请破产之前,Outpost Club已经接管了7处物业的管理权,Outpost的目标是Common 50%的库存。

在疫情期间,许多共享居住公司纷纷倒闭,而Common却在积极扩大其资产组合并进行融资。2020年至2022年期间,它收购了约5,000套住宅,到2023年,它已获得了超过1.1亿美元风险投资。但在接受《纽约时报》采访时,该公司创始人布拉德·哈格里夫斯拒绝就Common是否盈利发表评论。

Outpost Club的斯塔罗斯汀表示,他认为,Common的财务困境正是源于推动该公司增长的大量资金,因为投资推动该公司在纳什维尔、渥太华和芝加哥等市场快速扩张。

斯塔罗斯汀对《财富》杂志表示:“Common需要在很多地方保持快速发展。”他解释称,在一个新的市场中获得一处房产,就需要建立全新的员工队伍和营销业务。 “如果将这个数字乘以20……这个过程需要投入巨额成本。我认为,扩大这种业务的规模,需要更多的时间。”

Habyt的CEO博沃尼告诉彭博社,Common的破产与该公司的合同和业务有关,也与利率压力增大有关。

这并不是Outpost第一次介入管理前竞争对手的合同。2019年,Bedly公司倒闭时,Outpost接管了该公司在曼哈顿和新泽西的部分转租协议;2021年,当德国公司Quarters宣布破产时,Outpost也采取了同样的做法。

与Common公司一样,尽管Quarters公司在风险融资方面大获成功,但最终依旧倒闭。2019年,Medici Living Group为其德国子公司融资3亿美元,用于扩张美国业务。

斯塔罗斯汀表示:“风险投资在房地产市场表现不佳,因为我们看到在10个或15个不同市场,需求增长迅速。因此,我认为这些公司之所以失败,是因为它们被要求在许多不同的市场上过快发展,而这在房地产行业是很难做到的。”

克拉拉·阿罗伊夫是共享居住物业买卖和投资平台Co-Living Cashflow公司的CEO。虽然她说本月早些时候有关Common申请破产的消息让她感到不安,但她也表示,考虑到该公司为扩张所投入的资金,这并不奇怪。

阿罗伊夫表示:“如果你进行过风险融资,你会面临快速增长和交付业绩的压力。很多时候,你会被迫增加房间数量、扩大需求或市场,你要在无法实现盈利或承受极高营业成本的情况下保持增长。”阿罗伊夫曾在波士顿创建并经营一家共享居住公司,该公司在疫情期间倒闭。

斯塔罗斯汀对《财富》杂志表示,与其他已经倒闭的著名竞争对手不同,Outpost选择将其业务和扩张计划集中在纽约,因为公司已经在当地建立了员工和营销网络。

疫情是对共享居住模式的严峻考验,由于许多潜在租户不愿与陌生人近距离共同居住,导致一些最大的运营商纷纷倒闭。当Quarters倒闭时,它经营着大约3,000套住宅,并且正在开发另外1,500套住宅。2021年,共享办公公司WeWork的共享居住子公司WeLive,以及英国公司The Collective相继倒闭。 The Collective在申请破产时拥有约10万套住宅。

除了疫情、扩张带来的问题和高利率之外,共享居住公司还必须解决其相对较新的房屋供应方式所特有的问题。许多公司在宣传时,并不把自己当作传统的房东,而是租户和可用房间之间的桥梁。潜在租户不必为寻找室友共同租下一套住宅或者签订一年租约而烦恼。房间单独出租,人们通常只住几个月。但这种不固定、不干涉的方式也导致了一些问题。

2022年,据《野兽日报》报道,Common Living物业的一些租户曾向该公司投诉安全问题、维护不善以及存在潜在危险的住户。一位租户在公寓群聊中发帖说,他要放火烧楼——但文章中引用的住户报告说,Common的响应团队未能以适当或及时的方式沟通或处理情况。

然而,尽管Common和其他竞争者相继倒闭,Co-Living Cashflow的阿罗伊夫和Outpost Club的斯塔罗斯汀表示,他们相信这种商业模式将继续存在。虽然这种模式的发展一波三折,但共享居住这种理念的核心,即灵活便利的房屋供应,在年轻租房者中有着足够多的需求。

阿罗伊夫表示:“年轻人付不起房租,而纽约、波士顿和洛杉矶等地房地产市场的最基本状况,这些数字在短期内不会发生重大变化。但共享居住模式要保持强劲增长,需要解决一个问题,那就是这种商业模式的哪个部分未能发挥作用。”

斯塔罗斯汀表示:“这个行业已经存在。我认为它不会消失。问题只是谁会在这个市场上发展壮大,但市场本身就在那里。”(财富中文网)

翻译:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

Common Living, which was founded in Brooklyn in 2015, was a pioneer of a new venture in residential property management: Rather than leasing out entire units, rooms would be rented out to individuals. Utilities, WiFi, and cleaning costs would be bundled together with rent—and apartments would be fully furnished.

Since then, co-living has ballooned across the U.S. and around the globe, but Common Living’s journey as a trailblazer of the model ended unceremoniously late last month when the company announced it was filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and liquidating its assets. The firm, which operated a U.S. portfolio of 5,200 units in 12 cities, now joins a growing list of co-living operators who have flamed out, leaving questions about the future viability of the model.

In 2023, Common Living merged with a Berlin-based competitor, Habyt, creating a joined entity that operated more than 30,000 units in more than a dozen countries. Luca Bovone, Habyt’s CEO, said that while closing Common was unfortunate, its liquidation would make Habyt a profitable company.

“This decision, although not what we had hoped for, will make the remainder of the Habyt group more financially agile, with greater capacity to accelerate growth and generate value,” Bovone told Bisnow, a site dedicated to commercial real estate news.

Thousands of Common’s units are going to be taken over by Outpost Club, another giant in the model that already operates around 1,500 units in 40 buildings in New York City. Sergii Starostin, the firm’s CEO, told Fortune the company had taken over management of seven properties before the bankruptcy was filed, and that Outpost was targeting 50% of Common’s inventory.

While many co-living companies went out of business during the pandemic, Common was aggressively expanding its portfolio and raising funding. It acquired around 5,000 units between 2020 and 2022, and by 2023 it had raised more than $110 million in venture capital. However, in an interview with the New York Times, company founder Brad Hargreaves declined to comment on whether Common was profitable or not.

Outpost Club’s Starostin said he believed the massive funding that fueled Common may have actually contributed to its financial troubles, as investments drove the company to expand at a rapid pace in markets like Nashville, Ottawa, and Chicago.

“Common needed to grow in many places very fast,” Starostin told Fortune, explaining that picking up a single property in a new market requires building completely new staff and marketing operations. “And when you multiply that by 20…that becomes a pretty expensive journey. My opinion is that to scale this kind of business, it just takes more time.”

Habyt CEO Bovone told Bloomberg that Common’s bankruptcy was related to the company’s contracts and business, as well as the increased pressure of interest rates.

This isn’t the first time Outpost has stepped in to manage a former competitor’s contracts. It took over some of Bedly’s sublease agreements in Manhattan and New Jersey when the company shut down in 2019, and it did the same when the German company Quarters declared bankruptcy in 2021.

Like Common, Quarters failed despite its success in raising venture capital. The Medici Living Group raised $300 million for its German subsidiary to expand in the U.S. in 2019.

“Venture Capital is not working very well with real estate, because we see demands to grow in like 10 or 15 different markets pretty rapidly,” Starostin said. “So I think that those companies failed because they were demanded to grow too fast in many different markets, and that is very difficult to do in real estate.”

Clara Arroyave is the CEO of Co-Living Cashflow, a platform to buy, sell, and invest in co-living properties. While she said she was upset by the news about Common earlier this month, she also said it wasn’t surprising considering the amount of investment staked in the company’s expansion.

“When you raise venture capital, you’re pressured to grow and to deliver very quickly,” said Arroyave, who founded and ran a co-living company in Boston before it went out of business during the pandemic. “And many times you’re pushed to expand your amount of rooms or demand or market, and you keep growing without profitability or having a very high overhead cost.”

Unlike other prominent competitors that have flamed out, Starostin told Fortune that Outpost has chosen to concentrate its operations—and plans for expansion—in New York, where the company already has established staff and marketing networks.

The pandemic was a serious test for the model, and some of its biggest operators shuttered as many prospective tenants veered away from close-quartered living arrangements with strangers. When Quarters went down, it operated around 3,000 units and was developing 1,500 more. 2021 also saw the demise of WeLive, the co-living offshoot of WeWork, and The Collective, a U.K.-based firm that had almost 100,000 units in its portfolio when it declared bankruptcy.

Beyond the pandemic, problems with expansion, and high interest rates, co-living companies have to grapple with problems more specific to their still relatively new approach to housing. Many companies advertise themselves less as traditional landlords, and more as platforms to connect people with available rooms. Prospective renters don’t have to worry about finding roommates to go in on a full unit, or a yearlong lease. Rooms are rented individually, and people often stay just a few months. But the somewhat fluid, hands-off approach has led to problems in some instances.

In 2022, the Daily Beast reported that some tenants of Common Living properties had complained to the company about security issues, poor maintenance, and occupants living on site who were potentially dangerous. One tenant posted in an apartment group chat that he was going to set fire to the building—but the residents quoted in the article reported that Common’s response team failed to communicate or handle situations in an appropriate or timely manner.

And yet despite the shutdown of Common and other competitors, Co-Living Cashflow’s Arroyave and Outpost Club’s Starostin said they believe the business model is here to stay. While it has progressed in fits and starts, the flexibility and easy access to housing at the core of the co-living idea is something that there is more than enough demand for among young renters.

“Young people cannot afford rent, and the fundamentals of housing—in New York, in Boston, in L.A.—the numbers are not going to change dramatically anytime soon,” Arroyave said. “But for co-living to stay strong, the question is, what is the part of the business model that is not working?”

“The move is already there,” Starostin said. “I don’t think it will go anywhere. It’s just a question of who will grow in this market, but the market itself is there.”

财富中文网所刊载内容之知识产权为财富媒体知识产权有限公司及/或相关权利人专属所有或持有。未经许可,禁止进行转载、摘编、复制及建立镜像等任何使用。
0条Plus
精彩评论
评论

撰写或查看更多评论

请打开财富Plus APP

前往打开