The importance of property ownership for feelings of control and ontological security has received significant academic attention. Yet tenure may not be the only indicator of control over one’s dwelling. This paper considers the importance of control within the household in relation to household members’ feelings of home and highlights the importance of one’s relationship with other household members and their relative control over decision-making and the use of space. It draws upon research on multigenerational households in Australian cities, including a survey (n = 392), diaries (n = 21) and interviews (n = 21). Individuals’ feelings of home were influenced by their sense of control over their dwellings, which varied for different household members. This has significant implications for research on the meaning of home, and suggests that important synergies are possible between researchers concerned with the form and nature of social interactions within the family and housing researchers concerned with the meaning of home.

Many people around the world live in households with multiple generations of related adults (multigenerational households). While more prominent in certain cultures, multigenerational living is also an important part of the lives of millions in societies where this arrangement has not been seen as ‘the norm’. Australia is one such case, where one in five people live in a multigenerational household. This article presents findings of a research project on multigenerational households in Australia, including a survey of 392 people, 21 diaries and 21 follow-up interviews to explore how multigenerational household members understand their own experiences of living together. It focuses particularly on whether they feel multigenerational living is a socially accepted living arrangement. The article concludes with a discussion about how these experiences and understandings of multigenerational family members may reflect changing social norms regarding the form and role of families in Australian society.

Community opposition to locally unwanted development is not inherently problematic, but it can be destructive where conflict between proponents and objectors escalates. This paper relates mixed-methods findings from a Sydney case-study where opposition to planned affordable housing projects was widespread but uneven. Five factors are identified that escalated individual opposition campaigns in this case: public notification procedures; sense of injustice; prejudice; strong campaign leadership; and the involvement of politicians. We argue that these factors will likely also escalate opposition to the planned development of other forms of critical social infrastructure, and that an understanding of them can help minimise destructive conflicts between proponents and host communities.

Shared rental housing has long been one of the few affordable options available to low-income urban singles. Gaining access to a share rental dwelling has historically relied on ‘low tech’ communications such as noticeboards and classifieds, in relatively localised spatial areas. With the global proliferation of digitally mediated peer-to-peer platforms, the geographical reach of shared renting, including the opportunity for living with strangers, has expanded. Amidst declining affordability and growing precarity, the enhanced spatial flows and connectivity of peer-to-peer platforms provide a direct yet informal route into rental housing. In these informal spaces, singles rely on networks of ‘distributed’ rather than ‘institutional’ trust associated with formal rental arrangements. Drawing on interviews with urban singles in Australia, this paper explores the everyday informal practices of forming networks for shared access, negotiating the living agreement, creating a home and becoming an expert in the digitally mediated spaces of the shared rental household. The everyday informal practices of ‘distributed trust’ sheds new light on the spatially contingent ‘trust cultures’ emerging in shared renting. Despite narratives of a movement towards the more collaborative consumption of a sharing economy, enduring informal practices of opportunists and entrepreneurs that erode trust and a sense of home persist.