Although many people still do not sound like it, coliving does not cease to attract attention in the press, starring more and more articles that propose an obsessively mercantile definition of the concept. This vision offers a meaning of coliving biased by a business model whose objective is to maximize profits in a real estate context that voraciously monopolizes all innovation. Can I only live in a coliving until I am 40 years old and if I am an entrepreneur? Is living in a coliving something reserved only for the rich? Can it only be configured as a series of private rooms dotted with some common space?
The answer is no. It is not only for children under 40, nor is it exclusive for rich and entrepreneurs, nor is it limited to a mere sum of individual rooms. This is only the guideline that some market players intend to define as coliving, after calculating that it is the business model that can offer the greatest return to an investment fund. A model that offers different and highly individualized experiences in exchange for minimum space and certain suggestive common areas, a coliving doesn’t have to be that.
The coliving, is to equal the cohousing, is a model where a relationship between private and common tries to answer builds a current need to return and live under a collaborative paradigm, which is not far from how we lived recently. Since then, we have been assuming an excessively atomized way of life, reaching the point of being unable to ask the neighbor for salt and use the meetings of the neighborhood community to fight us. Between extreme individualism and the commune, there is a different color palette that defines a relationship between the private and the common, and that responds to the needs of a society that demands more and more to rescue the shared knowledge, the collaborative culture and the values of the common. Learn more at this website.
Comments are closed.