The Co-’s of Co-Living: How the Advertisement of Living Is Taking Over Housing Realities

Author:

Coricelli Federico

Abstract

Co-living penetrated the urban realm both as a housing format and a neologism with fluid meaning. The co-living concept was developed by various companies in the early 2010s claiming to provide a valuable alternative to flat living in highly competitive rental markets. As a real estate product, co-living consists of all-inclusive rental plans of furnished rooms connected to fully equipped communal areas, conceived both for short-term and long-term stays. The few realized buildings combine collective spaces as laundries and co-working spaces with rooms as small as nine square meters. This kind of layout explicitly targets the urban middle-classer willing to live simultaneously <em>together and apart</em>. Differently from other housing formats, co-living is promoted through the jargon of sharing economy more than one of real-estate agencies. The <em>co-</em>root is commonly explained in companies’ recurring website section “What’s co-living?” as <em>collective-</em>living, <em>convenient</em>-living, and<em> community</em>-living. The emphasis on<em> </em>communitarian living echoes the semantics of co-housing. However, co-living<em> communities</em> differ radically from co-housing ones, based on a bottom-up initiative of inhabitants subscribing to a contract of cohabitation. In contrast, a co-living community is generated exclusively through economic accessibility. This article gives a critical insight into the mutated meanings of housing in the digital era by analysing co-living companies’ narratives and their spatial counterpart in realized buildings. The evidence collected by co-living promotion contributes to addressing a broader shift in real estate towards emphasizing the experiential dimension of lifestyle over space and shelter as primary housing features.

Publisher

Cogitatio

Subject

Urban Studies

Reference35 articles.

1. Airbnb. (n.d.). Host an experience on Airbnb. https://www.airbnb.com/host/experiences

2. Aureli, P. V., Tattara, M., & Dogma. (2019). Loveless: The minimum dwelling and its discontents. Black Square.

3. Bhatia, N., & Steinmuller, A. (2018). Spatial models for the domestic commons: Communes, co-living and cooperatives. Architectural Design, 88(4), 120-127.

4. Bierbaum, M. (2017). Urban nomads: Infrastructure for the detached. HafenCity University Hamburg.

5. Boltanski, L., & Esquerre, A. (2020). Enrichment: A critique of commodities. Polity Press.

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3