The youngest love it, the fifty-somethings are wary of it, and the architects applaud. Nothing really new in appearance and yet this style of housing shakes up our vision of home, of intimacy… and even of family life.
Among the trends that are transforming our interiors, some are more divisive than others. This is the case of this new way of living which is massively appealing to young owners, to the point of becoming a true manifesto of freedom. Architects love it, developers use it as their selling point, and on social networks, visits to these houses accumulate millions of views. However, at family dinners, the discussion quickly turns into debate: “How can we live in there?”
25-40 year olds see it as a promise of space and authenticity. They dream of light and modular atmospheres, of a living place that adapts to their rhythms, between teleworking, meals with friends and moments of relaxation. For them, walls should no longer separate, but connect. The home must breathe, allow movement, reflect a fluid and connected lifestyle.
Those over 50, for their part, often remain perplexed. For this generation accustomed to compartmentalizing each function of the home, the idea of an all-in-one space is confusing. Where did the dining room go? And the door that closes the living room? Noise, smells, everything seems to circulate without filter. Older people see it as a loss of comfort and an invasion of privacy, whereas young people talk about openness and conviviality. Two visions of the house clash, two relationships to intimacy and sharing too.
The concept at the heart of this discord? The open-plan house: synonymous with freedom for some and lack of privacy for others. Spearhead of a generation that prefers transparency at borders, she rethinks the house as a large space to live in, to experience. An aesthetic and philosophical choice as much as a practical one.
Ultimately, this opposition is about much more than just a matter of planning. It reflects our relationship to the world, between desire for openness and need for reference points. What if this debate on falling walls was only the reflection of a society which, too, is seeking its balance between distance and proximity?
