Coliving Feasibility Consultant

Site and deal assessment, unit economics, and a clear go or no-go before you commit capital to a coliving project.

Mayank Pokharna · Founder, Everything Coliving

13 years in coliving · Reviewed by the Everything Coliving team

Feasibility work answers one question before you commit capital: does this specific building, at this specific rent, in this specific market, actually pencil as coliving? It is a structured stress test of the deal, not a pitch deck.

The aim is a defensible go, no-go, or renegotiate decision backed by unit economics you can take to a lender or an investment committee. Most sites that look exciting in a viewing fall apart when you model realistic occupancy, staffing, and turnover.

Done early, this saves you from the most expensive mistake in the sector: signing a lease or buying an asset whose numbers only work on a spreadsheet that assumes everything goes right.

What this covers

Feasibility spans the deal and the site. On the deal side we model rent per bed against your fully loaded operating cost, including staffing, cleaning, utilities, software, marketing, voids, and a realistic bad debt allowance. On the site side we look at how many lettable beds the building actually yields once you subtract shared kitchens, lounges, laundry, back of house, and circulation.

We also test the assumptions that quietly sink projects: the ramp period before you hit stabilised occupancy, the seasonality of demand in that catchment, and the true cost of tenant turnover when the average stay is measured in months rather than years.

The output is a model you can interrogate, not a single headline yield. You should be able to change one input, such as achieved rent or average length of stay, and see the deal move.

•Bed count and net lettable area after shared and back of house space
•Rent per bed versus fully loaded cost per bed
•Occupancy ramp, stabilised occupancy, and void allowance
•Turnover cost and average length of stay assumptions
•Capex to convert or fit out, and payback period
•Sensitivity on the two or three inputs that actually move the return

How the engagement works

We start from your real numbers, not sector averages. That means the actual head rent or purchase price, the actual building plans, and the actual local rents for comparable rooms and studios. Where data is thin, we say so and model a range rather than inventing a point estimate.

From there we build a single model with clearly labelled assumptions, then run it through downside cases. A deal that only works at ninety five percent occupancy and premium rents is not a deal, it is a hope. We want to see what happens at a more sober occupancy and a slower ramp.

You leave with a recommendation and the reasoning behind it, so that if you disagree you can see exactly which assumption we differ on and change it yourself.

What good looks like

A good feasibility outcome is boring in the best way: a clear decision, a model you trust, and no nasty surprises in month six. The deal either clears your return threshold with room to spare on realistic assumptions, or it does not and you walk away having spent a small fee instead of a large lease commitment.

It also gives you leverage. When the model shows the deal only works below a certain head rent, that becomes your negotiating line with the landlord or vendor. Feasibility is as much a negotiation tool as a filter.

•A go, no-go, or renegotiate call you can defend to investors
•A stabilised return that survives a realistic downside case
•A rent or price ceiling to anchor negotiation
•A funding narrative that a lender or investor recognises as credible

Where operators get it wrong

The most common error is modelling coliving like a single let and forgetting how much space, staff, and money the shared experience consumes. Beds get counted generously, communal areas get counted as almost free, and the operating cost per bed comes in far higher than the plan assumed.

The second error is ignoring the ramp. A new building does not fill overnight, and the months of low occupancy while you build demand can be the difference between a deal that works and one that bleeds cash through its first year.

The third is treating turnover as an afterthought. When the average stay is short, every move out carries a cleaning, marketing, and void cost, and a building with high churn can be busy and still unprofitable.

Signs it is time to bring this in

✓You are about to sign a head lease or buy an asset and want a second set of eyes on the numbers
✓A broker or landlord deck shows a yield you suspect is optimistic
✓You have several sites competing for the same capital and need to rank them
✓An investor or lender has asked for a credible model before releasing funds
✓Your first site underperformed and you want to know if the concept or the deal was the problem

What you walk away with

→A single editable unit economics model with clearly labelled assumptions
→Net lettable bed count derived from the actual floor plans
→Stabilised return plus base, downside, and slow ramp scenarios
→A rent or purchase price ceiling to guide negotiation
→A short written recommendation with the reasoning and key risks
→A funding ready summary you can put in front of a lender or investor

Worked example

Imagine a 24 bed building offered at a head rent that works out to roughly 800 a month per bed to the operator, with achievable resident rents around 1,200 a month. On paper that spread looks healthy. The feasibility model then subtracts staffing, cleaning, utilities, software, marketing, and a void allowance, and layers in a six month ramp to stabilised occupancy.

Once the shared kitchen, lounge, and back of house space are removed, the building yields fewer truly lettable beds than the headline count suggested, and the fully loaded cost per bed climbs. At a sober ninety percent stabilised occupancy the deal still clears a modest margin, but at eighty five percent with a slower ramp it turns negative in year one.

The recommendation in this example is not simply no. It is: the deal works only if the head rent comes down by a stated amount, or the operator can prove faster lease up in that catchment. That gives the client a specific number to negotiate rather than a vague worry.

Go deeper and try the tools

Frequently asked questions

How is coliving feasibility different from a standard property appraisal?+

A standard appraisal values the bricks. Feasibility values the operating business on top of them: how many beds you can actually let, at what rent, at what cost to run, and how long it takes to fill. Two identical buildings can have very different coliving economics depending on layout, staffing model, and local demand.

What data do you need from me to start?+

At minimum the head rent or purchase price, the floor plans or a measured survey, and any local comparables you have for rooms and studios. The more real data you bring, the tighter the model. Where data is missing we model a range and flag it rather than guessing a single figure.

Can feasibility work help me raise money?+

Yes. A model that survives a downside case and clearly labels its assumptions is exactly what a credible lender or investor wants to see. It also protects you, because the same rigour that convinces an investor is what stops you committing to a deal that does not stand up.

What if the answer is no?+

Then the engagement has paid for itself many times over. Walking away from a bad lease or purchase is a win, and the model usually also shows the conditions under which the deal would work, so you can go back and renegotiate rather than simply abandoning it.

How long does a feasibility engagement take?+

It depends on data quality and the number of sites, but a single well documented building can usually be modelled and stress tested quickly once the inputs are in hand. The bottleneck is almost always gathering accurate plans and local rent comparables, not the modelling itself.

Areas of consulting