Are Co-owners Happy?

For several years, the world of co-ownership has evolved in a context where certain tensions persist, often fueled by ongoing misunderstandings between co-owners, boards of directors, managers and other stakeholders in the sector. But is this situation truly the result of a lack of effort or willingness from any of these actors?

When we observe the technological advances transforming property management, the new digital tools available to syndicates of co-ownership, as well as the efforts made by developers to design buildings better adapted to collective living, it is clear that the sector is moving forward. The legal framework is also becoming more precise. Rules are better defined, legal mechanisms are more widely understood, and initiatives to inform and train co-owners and property managers continue to grow.

So where does the real challenge lie?

The answer may rest in a fundamental characteristic of co-ownership itself. It imposes a collective lifestyle on individuals who have not always chosen this model out of preference. For many, single-family home ownership remains the ideal, while co-ownership is primarily a solution shaped by economic and housing realities. This can influence how residents relate to their neighbours, shared rules and collective decision making.

Added to this is the weight of financial investment. Purchasing a unit in co-ownership is often the result of years of savings and significant personal effort. It is therefore natural for each co-owner to want to protect their asset, monitor expenses and defend what they perceive as their essential interests. This legitimate reflex can, however, generate tension when it collides with the requirements of the collective good.

This dynamic contributes to the sometimes conflictual reputation of co-ownership. In Québec, friction often appears in relationships between co-owners, board members, managers and service providers. But is this perception inevitable, or simply the symptom of a model still in transition?

Co-ownership can be envisioned differently. Rather than reducing it to a set of rules, common expenses and administrative obligations, it can become a true shared living project. Highlighting the concrete benefits of collective living, strengthening services and fostering a sense of belonging could transform the daily experience of co-owners.

Co-ownership communities focused on services, comfort, safety and quality of life have the potential to profoundly change how residents perceive their living environment. This evolution also represents an opportunity for sector stakeholders to develop innovative solutions and shared services better aligned with current expectations.

In short, if the co-owner of 2026 sometimes feels caught between individual control and collective requirements, it may be because co-ownership is still in a phase of transition. Neither fully master of one’s home nor yet fully engaged in a meaningful collective project.

Developing a more human and intelligent approach to shared living would allow us to move beyond a strictly legal vision of co-ownership, toward calm, sustainable and cohesive living environments.

The co-ownership of the future is being built today. And exemplary co-ownership is no longer a utopia, but a path within reach.

Based on a text by 

Jean-Pierre Lannoy, gestionnaire de copropriété 
Dirigeant de COPRO ACADEMY