IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arz/wpaper/eres2018_294.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

CoWorking Space v. The Traditional Office Space: Challenges and Opportunities in Sydney

Author

Listed:
  • Hera Antoniades
  • Dulani Halvitigala
  • Chris Eves

Abstract

CoWorking space is commonly a collaborative space in an office-like environment. The space can be in the form of very short office leases which range anywhere between a day to a week and longer; and the space can be used independently, collaboratively or in nominated teams. The intent of coworking spaces is numerous, which includes a sense of community environment, encouraging greater productivity, provide access for mobile and freelance workers and an affordable solution to start-ups who are on a restricted budget and unable to enter into long term rental commitments. Many landlords are being challenged by this growing demand for flexible, scalable, collaborative spaces with short term leases. A desktop analysis of eighteen (18) coworking locations in Sydney is undertaken. The findings identified three main opportunities for landlords to capture the coworking space – firstly, leasing space to coworking operators, secondly developing their own coworking platforms and thirdly partnering with coworking operators to develop coworking spaces; coupled with two main challenges associated with the implementation of coworking hubs – the reliance on coworking operators and their survival with changing market conditions, and secondly, transforming traditional office spaces into engaging coworking vibrant hubs.

Suggested Citation

  • Hera Antoniades & Dulani Halvitigala & Chris Eves, 2018. "CoWorking Space v. The Traditional Office Space: Challenges and Opportunities in Sydney," ERES eres2018_294, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    • Handle: RePEc:arz:wpaper:eres2018_294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://eres.architexturez.net/doc/oai-eres-id-eres2018-294
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://eres.architexturez.net/system/files/P_20180204235522_1036.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aurélie Leclercq Vandelannoitte & Henri Isaac, 2016. "The new office: how coworking changes the work concept," Post-Print hal-01603367, HAL.
    2. Oliver Ibert, 2010. "Relational Distance: Sociocultural and Time–Spatial Tensions in Innovation Practices," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(1), pages 187-204, January.
    3. Julian Waters-Lynch & Jason Potts, 2017. "The social economy of coworking spaces: a focal point model of coordination," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 75(4), pages 417-433, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matus Barath & Dusana Alshatti Schmidt, 2022. "Offices after the COVID-19 Pandemic and Changes in Perception of Flexible Office Space," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nina Thornton & Martin Engert & Andreas Hein & Helmut Krcmar, 2023. "Finding new purpose for vacancies in rural areas: a taxonomy of coworking space business models," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 1395-1423, September.
    2. Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek & Minou Weijs-Perrée & Marko Orel & Felix Gauger & Andreas Pfnür, 2021. "User preferences for coworking spaces; a comparison between the Netherlands, Germany and the Czech Republic," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(7), pages 2025-2048, October.
    3. Paula Rodríguez-Modroño, 2021. "Non-standard work in unconventional workspaces: Self-employed women in home-based businesses and coworking spaces," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(11), pages 2258-2275, August.
    4. Cristopher Siegfried Kopplin, 2021. "Two heads are better than one: matchmaking tools in coworking spaces," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1045-1069, May.
    5. Martin M�ller & Allison Stewart, 2016. "Does Temporary Geographical Proximity Predict Learning? Knowledge Dynamics in the Olympic Games," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(3), pages 377-390, March.
    6. Ibert, Oliver & Müller, Felix C., 2015. "Network dynamics in constellations of cultural differences: Relational distance in innovation processes in legal services and biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 181-194.
    7. Vagianos Dimitrios & Koutsoupias Nikos, 2021. "Framing Coworking Spaces Marketing Strategies via Social Media Indices," Econometrics. Advances in Applied Data Analysis, Sciendo, vol. 25(2), pages 1-14, June.
    8. Ricarda B. Bouncken & Sven M. Laudien & Viktor Fredrich & Lars Görmar, 2018. "Coopetition in coworking-spaces: value creation and appropriation tensions in an entrepreneurial space," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 385-410, March.
    9. Erik Rådman & Erik Johansson & Petra Bosch-Sijtsema & Hendry Raharjo, 2023. "In search of member needs in coworking spaces," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 881-907, April.
    10. Saeed Nosratabadi & Amir Mosavi & Shahaboddin Shamshirband & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Andry Rakotonirainy & Kwok Wing Chau, 2019. "Sustainable Business Models: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-30, March.
    11. Sophie Boutillier & Ignasi Capdevila & Laurent Dupont & Laure Morel, 2020. "Collaborative spaces promoting creativity and innovation," Post-Print hal-02878132, HAL.
    12. Danning Zhang & Ming Yan & Haowen Wang & Weiwei Li, 2021. "Sustainable-Development Measurement of China’s Coworking Industry Using Social-Network Analysis Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, May.
    13. Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent, 2021. "What Do We Know about Co-Working Spaces? Trends and Challenges Ahead," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    14. Victor Cabral & Willem Winden, 2022. "The reaction of coworking spaces to the COVID-19 pandemic. A dynamic capabilities perspective," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(2), pages 257-281, June.
    15. Basile Michel, 2018. "Emergence of entrepreneurial dynamics in coworking spaces for cultural and creative entrepreneurs [Émergence de dynamiques entrepreneuriales au sein d’espaces de coworking pour entrepreneurs cultur," Post-Print halshs-01905253, HAL.
    16. Domenico Berdicchia & Fulvio Fortezza & Giovanni Masino, 2023. "The key to happiness in collaborative workplaces. Evidence from coworking spaces," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1213-1242, May.
    17. Brian J. Bergman & Jeffery S. McMullen, 2022. "Helping Entrepreneurs Help Themselves: A Review and Relational Research Agenda on Entrepreneurial Support Organizations," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 46(3), pages 688-728, May.
    18. Nosratabadi, Saeed & Mosavi, Amir & Shamshirband, Shahaboddin & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Rakotonirainy, Andry & Chau, Kwok Wing, 2020. "Sustainable Business Models: A Review," OSF Preprints u4xw3, Center for Open Science.
    19. Axel Stein, 2014. "The Significance of Distance in Innovation Biographies—The Case of Law Firms," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 430-449, September.
    20. Heidi Wiig Aslesen & Roman Martin & Stefania Sardo, 2019. "The virtual is reality! On physical and virtual space in software firms’ knowledge formation," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(9-10), pages 669-682, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    challanges; collaborative spaces; Coworking spaces; office landlords; Opportunities;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R3 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arz:wpaper:eres2018_294. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Architexturez Imprints (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eressea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.