"So no one told you life was gonna be this way."

For an entire generation, that opening line from FRIENDS felt uncannily accurate - and nowhere more so than in how we imagined adult life would unfold. Adulting, as the show suggested, meant sharing life (and rent) with close friends. Doors were always open. Conversations stretched late into the night. Familiar faces were always around, offering comfort, laughter, and a sense of belonging.

It wasn't just entertainment - it quietly shaped expectations. FRIENDS framed living with friends as a natural progression of adulthood rather than a temporary compromise, turning the home into a constant social hub where friendships thrived by default.

Fast forward to today, and that ideal is resurfacing - but under very different circumstances.

Today, living with friends is no longer just a lifestyle choice - it's increasingly a financial strategy. And that changes everything.

As housing costs rise and life paths become less linear, living with friends has shifted from a nostalgic fantasy to a practical housing strategy, whether through co-living arrangements or even buying a home together.

The question is no longer whether living with friends sounds appealing.

It's whether it actually works once real estate, money, and long-term commitments enter the picture.

The apartment at the heart of FRIENDS was more than a backdrop. It was a social anchor - spacious, central, and stable. Friends lived close by, routines were predictable, and housing never felt like a source of stress.

In reality, that environment was made possible by conditions most homeowners and renters today do not enjoy. Space was generous relative to income. Housing commitments felt flexible. And crucially, the show never had to deal with the long-term consequences of real property decisions.

What played out as a lifestyle choice on screen is, today, often driven by financial necessity.

Rising property prices, delayed marriage, and longer periods of financial building have reshaped how young adults approach housing. The traditional progression - move out, buy solo, settle down - no longer align neatly with how careers and finances actually unfold. Living with friends has therefore emerged as an appealing middle ground: more autonomy than living with family, yet significantly more cost-efficient than living alone.

Beyond pure affordability, there's also a psychological and emotional dimension at play. Sharing a home with people you trust can soften the pressures of demanding jobs and rising living costs, while shared responsibility makes both financial and emotional burdens feel more manageable.

For many, this choice isn't about recreating a sitcom fantasy or clinging to nostalgia. It's about buying time - to build savings, gain career clarity, and make more deliberate long-term decisions.

Seen through this lens, living with friends is less a step backwards than a pragmatic response to today's housing realities and shifting supply in the HDB market.

Living with friends can take very different forms, and the distinction matters far more than most people initially realise.

Co-living arrangements, where friends rent a home together, prioritise flexibility above all else. Commitments are typically shorter, exits are comparatively straightforward, and the arrangement is largely driven by lifestyle compatibility rather than long-term financial alignment.

In practice, this often means renting individual rooms in larger HDB flats or private apartments, with typical leases running 12 to 24 months and rents that can fluctuate sharply depending on location and market conditions. For many young singles, sharing space is less about preference and more about absorbing rental pressure collectively.

Co-buying, however, introduces an entirely different set of stakes. Buying a property together transforms a personal relationship into a formal financial partnership. Decisions around mortgages, equity contributions, loan servicing, renovations, and eventual resale are no longer individual choices - they become shared responsibilities with legal and financial consequences.

In the Singapore context, this also means CPF entanglement. Most buyers will be using their CPF Ordinary Account, and when the property is eventually sold, the principal amount plus accrued interest must be refunded. This accrued interest reflects the 2.5% annual interest you would have earned if the funds had remained in your CPF Ordinary Account, with funds tied up and future housing options delayed, affecting your ability to optimise your wealth for retirement. If the property hasn't appreciated sufficiently, one party may find themselves 'in the red', with CPF funds tied up and future housing options - such as a BTO with a partner - delayed or compromised.

What often catches buyers off guard is that co-buying assumes long-term alignment. It assumes that incomes will grow at similar rates, that risk tolerance will remain comparable, and that life timelines - upgrading, relocating, or settling down - will continue to move in sync.

In Singapore, there is also an opportunity cost. Buying a private property with a friend today means being disqualified from applying for a BTO for 30 months after selling that interest. You're not just sharing a home; you're potentially postponing your future family home by years - a layer of consequence that sitcom characters never had to consider.

While both models involve shared space, only one involves shared ownership. And once ownership enters the equation, flexibility narrows, exits become complex, and you may find yourself in a lifestyle lock-in that is difficult to reverse.

Few things reshape household dynamics faster than money.

Friends may start out with similar intentions, but differences in income, savings, and risk tolerance tend to surface quickly once real bills and long-term commitments are involved. What begins as a shared vision can soon give way to practical questions: Who contributes more to the monthly payments? Are expenses split evenly, or proportionately? How are renovation costs, furnishings, and ongoing maintenance funded?

Tension often arises not because these questions are unreasonable, but because they are deeply personal. A higher earner may feel overburdened. A lower earner may feel guilty or exposed. Even small day-to-day decisions - utilities usage, home upgrades, or lifestyle spending - can start to feel transactional when financial contributions are unequal.

In theory, these issues can be managed through open conversations and clear agreements. In practice, they are frequently avoided until a stress point is reached, such as job loss, unexpected expenses, or a desire to upgrade. At that stage, financial imbalance does not just affect budgets - it affects perceptions of fairness, commitment, and control.

Friendships are often forgiving when it comes to emotional differences. Property arrangements, however, are far less tolerant. Once money is involved, goodwill alone is rarely enough to sustain long-term harmony.

Property assumes stability. Young adulthood rarely offers it.

Careers evolve. Relationships change. Opportunities arise overseas. What feels aligned at the point of purchase may diverge within a few years. Even when people start out on seemingly similar paths, personal dynamics can shift in ways that property arrangements are ill-equipped to absorb, especially when choosing between permanence and flexibility in a changing market.

We've seen this play out among young professionals and creators.

Consider a common and familiar scenario. A group of four friends or colleagues move into a flat together, drawn by the idea of shared costs and the excitement of building something together. The flat doubles as both a home and a base for a joint business venture. At first, the lines feel comfortably blurred-work spills into the living room, ideas are exchanged over dinner, and the shared space reinforces a sense of collective momentum.

The dynamic changes when two of the flatmates enter a romantic relationship.

What was once neutral common space no longer feels neutral. Decisions begin to be discussed privately before they are shared collectively. The couple, often unintentionally, starts to operate as a unit - creating a subtle but powerful imbalance within the household. For the remaining flatmate or flatmates, there's a growing sense of being the 'odd one out', both socially and professionally.

In a domestic setting, these shifts are magnified. Disagreements over business direction begin to feel personal. Questions around brand equity, ownership, and contribution are harder to separate from emotions when they are debated at the kitchen table rather than in a formal meeting room. Professional boundaries erode, personal favouritism is suspected, and trust slowly weakens.

When one person is ready to step back, restructure, or move on, tension follows. Property does not adjust easily to shifting life priorities, and shared ownership - or even long-term co-living - magnifies the impact of misalignment. What began as a practical and exciting arrangement can unravel quickly, not because the individuals were ill-intentioned, but because the structure was never designed to withstand overlapping friendships, relationships, and financial stakes.

This is often where well-intentioned co-living or co-buying arrangements begin to strain.

The hardest part of living or buying with friends is rarely the beginning. It's the exit.

At the start, optimism tends to carry the arrangement forward. Everyone assumes they will "figure it out later". But property decisions are not easily reversible, and when circumstances change, unanswered questions surface quickly. Who buys whom out? How is the valuation calculated? And what happens if one person simply isn't ready to let go?

In Singapore, these questions are further complicated by legal and ownership structures. Friends who choose Joint Tenancy may not fully realise that the Right of Survivorship applies - meaning if one party passes away, their share automatically goes to the other owner. For many families, the idea that a CPF-funded asset could bypass next of kin in favour of a flatmate is deeply uncomfortable.

This is why, in most cases, Tenancy-in-Common is the more appropriate structure for friends. It allows each party's share to be clearly defined and passed on according to their will, offering greater protection and clarity should circumstances change.

Problems arise when exit expectations were never aligned. One party may be emotionally attached to the home, while another views it purely as an asset. One may be ready to sell and unlock capital, while another simply cannot afford to move. In these moments, what feels like a personal decision becomes a collective constraint.

The lack of a clear exit framework also places strain on communication. Conversations about money, timelines, and ownership feel heavier when they are entangled with friendship. Delays become awkward. Avoidance sets in. Resentment builds - not because anyone intended harm, but because no one wanted to confront uncomfortable scenarios early on.

Without clear exit plans, friendships can become collateral damage - not because the relationship failed, but because the structure supporting it was never designed to handle change. Real estate does not end friendships; unclear exits do.

The answer is nuanced.

Living with friends can work - particularly for those who value flexibility, are clear about timelines, and are renting rather than buying. It suits people who see this arrangement as a season, not a forever plan.

Buying with friends requires far more caution. It works best for those with aligned financial capacity, similar life horizons, and the discipline to formalise agreements before emotions enter the equation.

What rarely works is relying on optimism alone.

Before moving in or buying together, friends need to be clear on three things: how money is split, how decisions are made, and how each person exits if life changes.

The FRIENDS model promised effortless togetherness. Real life demands structure, planning, and honest conversations.

In today's housing market, the goal isn't to recreate a sitcom.

It's to make housing decisions that protect both your financial future and the friendships that matter most.

In the Singapore context, a handshake agreement is no match for a shareholders' agreement when your CPF is on the line.

Views expressed in this article belong to the writer(s) and do not reflect PropNex's position. No part of this content may be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published, or broadcast in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of PropNex.

For permission to use, reproduce, or distribute any content, please contact the Corporate Communications department. PropNex reserves the right to modify or update this disclaimer at any time without prior notice.