Housing for highly mobile transnational professionals: evolving forms of housing practices in Moscow and London

Figures & data

Table 1. Systematising the scholarship on adaptable housing forms and uses

	Scale	Forms of flexibility	Main users commonly mentioned in the literature
Architecturally designed adaptability of housing forms	Building area and neighbourhood	Flexible area plans and structures that allow individual variations; Multi-purpose common premises; Varied composition of apartments; Contractual communities (gated communities, cohousing etc.).	Families of different size and structure; Single-person households; Elderly people; Disabled people (Støa 2012; Friedman 2002; Schneider and Till 2005).
	Dwelling unit	Universal designs; Multi-functional rooms; Adaptability by means of moving elements; Extension of a dwelling by making use of secondary space/adding new space.	Families of different size and structure; Elderly people (Danziger and Chaudhury 2009; Houben 2001) Disabled people (Bitner and Franz 2011, Friedman 2002; Schneider and Till 2005).
Flexibility in housing uses and living arrangements	Building area and neighbourhood	Contractual communities (gated communities, cohousing etc.); Airbnbs.	Intentional communities (Jarvis 2011); Tourists (Veijola and Falin 2016) Super-rich and elites (Pow 2011; Woods 2013).
	Dwelling unit	House-sharing; ‘Living apart together’; Short-term rentals.	Students (Humphrey, McCarthy, and Braithwaite et al. 1997); Young adults (Heath and Kenyon 2001); Elderly.

Table 2. Factors of highly mobile living driving the need for housing flexibility

Characteristics of highly mobile living	Implications for housing uses	Examples among existing housing forms and uses
Economic constrains for housing preferences	Saving on housing costs ‘Middling’ nature of transnational workers Multilocal dwelling	‘Living apart together’ Sublets Airbnb
Temporal limitations over the life course	‘Non-traditional’ households: single-person households instead of nuclear family Short period in the lifetime Highly fluid and flexible arrangements	House-sharing Sublets Hotels and temporary housing Dual home-ownership
Requirements for physical and functional dimensions of dwelling	Adaptable housing solutions (e.g. open floor plans) Need for ‘standardised’ spaces Flexible living arrangements Easy spatial and social integration	Short-term rentals Student dorms House-sharing ‘Second’ homes

Støa, E. 2012. “Adaptable Housing.” In International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home, edited by S. J. Smith, 51–57. Oxford: Elsevier Science. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-047163-1.00508-7.

 Google Scholar

Friedman, A. 2002. The Adaptable House: Designing Homes for Change. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

 Google Scholar

Schneider, T., and J. Till. 2005. “Flexible Housing: Opportunities and Limits.” ARQ: Architectural Research Quarterly 9 (2): 157–166. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135505000199.

 Google Scholar

Danziger, S., and H. Chaudhury. 2009. “Older Adults’ Use of Adaptable Design Features in Housing Units: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Housing for the Elderly 23 (3): 134–148. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02763890903035498.

 Google Scholar

Houben, P. 2001. “Changing Housing for Elderly People and Co-ordination Issues in Europe.” Housing Studies 16 (5): 651–673. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030120080107.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bitner, G., and J. M. Franz (2011) “Socially Adaptable Housing New Housing Model for Families Living with Disability.” Proceedings of the 5th Australasian Housing Research Conference 2010. University of Auckland, New Zealand, 1–12.

 Google Scholar

Jarvis, H. 2011. “Saving Space, Sharing Time: Integrated Infrastructures of Daily Life in Cohousing.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 43 (3): 560–577. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/a43296.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Veijola, S., and P. Falin. 2016. “Mobile Neighbouring.” Mobilities 11 (3): 382–399. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2014.936715.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pow, C. P. 2011. “Living It Up: Super-rich Enclave and Transnational Elite Urbanism in Singapore.” Geoforum 42 (3): 382–393. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Woods, M. 2013. “The Elite Countryside: Shifting Rural Geographies of the Transnational Super-rich.” In Geographies of the Super-Rich, edited by I. Hay, 123–136. Abingdon, UK: Edward Elgar.

 Google Scholar

Humphrey, R., P. McCarthy, A. Braithwaite, Brook, C. Brumby, G. Carter, A. Chapman, J. Codd, J. Dunk, S. Kjaer. 1997. “High Debt and Poor Housing: A Taxing Life for Contemporary Students.” Youth and Policy 56: 55–63.

 Google Scholar

Heath, S., and L. Kenyon. 2001. “Single Young Professionals and Shared Household Living.” Journal of Youth Studies 4 (1): 83–100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260120028565.

 Google Scholar