I had the displeasure of touring the building from the article, and can say categorically that place is a modern day shithole, replete with random inner doors in the property padlocked shut from the "residents". It's basically an office block with as many _tiny_ rooms packed together as humanely possible, with shitty aircon and absolutely no sound insulation between whoever your existential pigeonhole happens to be paired with. The experience left me more concerned for the mental health of the people packed into those spaces than anything else
One of the unfortunate realities about the housing crisis is that you need crappy shitholes if you want complete housing coverage, because for those completely out of their luck a 20 sq. ft. room with unfinished plywood walls and broken fire detectors is still a 1000% better than a torn-up tent in the park. Granted the place in this article is just a gentrified tenement for hipsters working in entry positions paying twice the national average but want to live in places for those making 3x the average, but that doesn't invalidate the need for ultra-barebones housing.
I toured starcity in SF and indeed the rooms are tiny and the common space as well. If they had provided bigger rooms, and more common spaces and places to isolate yourself and a canteen, then I would have moved in.
This has the potential to decrease or to slow the increase of commutes. How much are you concerned for the mental health of the people who do 4h+ round trip commutes? Both are terrible choices, I myself think I would prefer living in such a shithole when single, commuting forever when in a family where at least the kids can be spared it. I believe in giving people the choice. If you think it's not a real choice because all their alternatives are worse, well, they'll obviously fall back on these worst alternatives if this arrangement is made illegal.
That might be bad for your mental health but I know several people who enjoy that, and prefer the privacy of having a tiny personal space rather than a larger shared house. It’s important to get the right people into these.
Huh? People have been "co-living" in urban areas forever, even though in some areas it is technically illegal. It's technically illegal in the city I live in but everyone does it.
This just sounds like a corporate, rent extracting appropriation of "co-living".
Honestly I'm sick and tired of the normalization of rent seeking. It's draining our collective creative energy.
If you want a glimpse into the original organized "co-living" movement, see here: https://coophousing.org/
I'm a big fan of the co-living movement, and that's why it's exciting to see it mainstreamed by corporations. I hope they're successful and we see more options for people to live with one another. I live in a group house and don't mind seeing this lifestyle normalized. I certainly lose nothing when more options are available to others.
Idea: create clean public restrooms and showers for everyone. Place them every few blocks so they are conveniently accessible everywhere. Have well paid cleaning staff that keeps the places in good shape at all times. Have well paid security staff, train them to be empathetic and help users out, also connect them with other organizations that could provide additional help that some users might need. And have free lockers where people can keep their clothes.
That might at least allow homeless people to be/feel clean, be treated with more respect/dignity and have a connection to a network of resources that could help them out.
In SF it might also get rid of the shit on the sidewalks, the smell of pee everywhere (especially around bars/nightclubs) and allow for easier tourism (it's kind of a pain finding a restroom some times when traveling).
Why not invest in the poor/less fortunate and give them as much as we can give them? All of society would be better off if instead of blaming these people for their situation, we helped them have a better one.
PS: Amsterdam has a slightly similar concept with their public urinals. They are kind gross, but they definitely help with keeping people from peeing all over the place. And pretty much everywhere in Japan there are clean public toilets (no showers or lockers though), it's really amazing.
> Why not invest in the poor/less fortunate and give them as much as we can give them?
It's hard to tell "less fortunate but a kind person that will be independent if given the chance" from "doesn't give a fuck and will take advantage of anything free/helpful in a destructive manner without any respect to others including those equally less fortunate or generous to him/her"
Society definitely creates the second type of people but I can't fault anyone for not wanting to put themselves in a position of vulnerability for the greater good of someone who won't appreciate it.
Cleaning staff and/or security staff are really expensive. In many other countries clean public restrooms are possible because users pay to use them, but in the US charging for restroom access is illegal in many places: https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2018/11/pay-toilets-shou...
I've been thinking about extreme co-living, with people who have a shared set of values living together and sharing not just the living space, but also wealth, to such an extent that it's basically a new-age monasticism. Regardless, the idea is crazy and out there, and probably possible with a limited subset of college professors or something like that, but still, it has its basis in shared values.
Working at the same company is not a shared set of values, at least not the way that companies are structured today and how workers are seen by those companies. As such, I don't think that these living spaces can build the tribal and communal opportunities that make a shared living space workable, and make people willing to improve that shared space. As corporations become larger, and with consideration to the fact that they might start to consider these kinds of shared values and try to build based on those, it might be possible, but it's probably also illegal for a corporation to do such a thing.
I think you nailed it with the common interests thing. People have compared this to both college dorm living and military boarding -- but in both of those cases you're surrounded by people your age with a ton of common interests, experiences, and values.
Creating a community from a mixed bag of corporate workers is possible, but it would take a lot more work.
The solution to the "housing crisis" is to establish a sensible legal framework that allows dense housing to:
- be owned by the individuals that live there if they choose to do so (renting should be a choice; owning should have similar accessibility)
- have a sensible framework for both renting and ownership that empowers the individuals actually living there e.g. no onerous lease crap or leasehold shenanigans
- actually be built e.g. kill off silly zoning
This sounds like none of those.
In most countries established interests block it. Hacking around it by just deciding that the way previous generations lived a happy life is inaccessible now and everyone should just live in Uber Flats is not the answer, sorry.
If as a renter you are free to do what you want in an apartment (on par with ownership, so if you end up damaging another apartment or the common areas you are responsible), and can't be kicked out because the landlord decides they want more money, I'm not sure if you would ever want to own a property. Excluding "investment opportunities" of course.
> co-living is billed as a solution to the housing crisis – but others say it’s simply an attempt to cash in on it
I mean, why not both? I think the problem is real, and I think modern housing approaches are driven by patterns and drives that are woefully outdated. I think there must be more humane, more collaborative ways to live.
On the other hand, I can name a lot of companies that market to real problems but clearly care much more about massive revenue than making any real difference.
Because there really isn't a housing crisis so much as a market failure to provide architecturally suitable spaces.
Consider that cities in N. America either have homes with large lots or condos with maximum 2 bedrooms (the price for 3 bedrooms or more scale non-linearly). Therefore it is very difficult to have a family of 4+ in an apartment.
The homes with large lots create areas with too low density which cause our transportation woes (long commutes, highways, infeasibility of public transport).
The 2 bedroom condo building are also often high-rises, which are also terrible (density is too high, making transportation near the building very difficult - just see the jams caused by people getting out of the high rise in the morning).
A more sensible, IMHO, is to have apartment blocks no taller than 8 stories with a good mix of 1, 2, and three bedroom units. These are found in poorer developed countries where the middle class could not necessarily afford a car, never mind two (my family in BsAs, for example in a 100 m^2, three bedroom apt)
I might consider living in an apartment building that traded some private space for shared common space, but the architecture of such would need to be actually usable, not the same "amenities" which are ever present in luxury apartments and mostly unused, impersonal affairs. I think the key there would be replacing the hallway of doors with shared kitchen and lounge spaces or something along those lines.
I'm not interested in living in a cubbyhole inside a co-working space.
Almost all of these places look super depressing, like something out of American Psycho.
I'd expect the common room to look like a makerspace, or Grandma's house, or an artist's studio, or a game room, or maybe each corner of it is different, whatever.
Has anyone here ever lived in a military mess? We’ve been doing it for hundreds of years and it can be a fantastic living experience, with communal meals and property, and opportunities to socialise, but your own space when you need it. I don't know why young professional civilians don't replicate it more often.
>“The Collective gave me that flexibility, but what kept me there – and I’ve extended my original contract – is the community and all the other things that come with it.”
Years ago they called these things tenement buildings. Although the word can mean any multi-home building, it usually is used (at least in the USA) as a reference to high capacity, low footprint, urban living arrangements.
So, yeah. It's a nice way to solve housing crisis for relatively low income living, but don't act like it's some sort of innovation that people are going to find super desirable. Because most people won't. Some people do, but most people kinda want their own house.
This is a glorified share house which is okay for short term ness when you know it’s end date. Being stuck there indefinitely totally sucks. People want their privacy and they want more of it as they get older. There’s a reason the richer you are the more you try to distance yourself from others by more privacy mechanisms.
The only thing I miss from living in a dorm is not having to cook, do dishes, or buy groceries. I know i could just go out to eat every meal but it seems more expensive when mom and dad aren't paying for it (or I'm not paying for it with loans that I'm still paying off...)
Co-living is total nightmare and the absolute end of human dignity since it reminds me having flatmates (I have plenty of experience with that) but in a way worse style
[+] [-] slovenlyrobot|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomatotomato37|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baby|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saagarjha|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emiliobumachar|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paggle|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blurbleblurble|6 years ago|reply
This just sounds like a corporate, rent extracting appropriation of "co-living".
Honestly I'm sick and tired of the normalization of rent seeking. It's draining our collective creative energy.
If you want a glimpse into the original organized "co-living" movement, see here: https://coophousing.org/
[+] [-] xvedejas|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klenwell|6 years ago|reply
I feel like this is the prototype of Roko's basilisk.[0]
I mean the rent-seeking part isn't new. That's been around since the beginning of time. Rent-seekers are going to rent-seek.
But the application of the latest modern technology to optimize it. This whole gig economy. That's new and feels like it's getting out of control.
[0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk
[+] [-] ta1234567890|6 years ago|reply
That might at least allow homeless people to be/feel clean, be treated with more respect/dignity and have a connection to a network of resources that could help them out.
In SF it might also get rid of the shit on the sidewalks, the smell of pee everywhere (especially around bars/nightclubs) and allow for easier tourism (it's kind of a pain finding a restroom some times when traveling).
Why not invest in the poor/less fortunate and give them as much as we can give them? All of society would be better off if instead of blaming these people for their situation, we helped them have a better one.
PS: Amsterdam has a slightly similar concept with their public urinals. They are kind gross, but they definitely help with keeping people from peeing all over the place. And pretty much everywhere in Japan there are clean public toilets (no showers or lockers though), it's really amazing.
[+] [-] tenebrisalietum|6 years ago|reply
It's hard to tell "less fortunate but a kind person that will be independent if given the chance" from "doesn't give a fuck and will take advantage of anything free/helpful in a destructive manner without any respect to others including those equally less fortunate or generous to him/her"
Society definitely creates the second type of people but I can't fault anyone for not wanting to put themselves in a position of vulnerability for the greater good of someone who won't appreciate it.
[+] [-] alexhutcheson|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ourlordcaffeine|6 years ago|reply
Nice. A totalitarian 'utopia', where your every move is watched on cctv for possible infractions.
I wonder what else they will punish residents for. Bringing dates back home? Having a skirt that's too short?
[+] [-] chronic839|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] moosey|6 years ago|reply
Working at the same company is not a shared set of values, at least not the way that companies are structured today and how workers are seen by those companies. As such, I don't think that these living spaces can build the tribal and communal opportunities that make a shared living space workable, and make people willing to improve that shared space. As corporations become larger, and with consideration to the fact that they might start to consider these kinds of shared values and try to build based on those, it might be possible, but it's probably also illegal for a corporation to do such a thing.
[+] [-] closetohome|6 years ago|reply
Creating a community from a mixed bag of corporate workers is possible, but it would take a lot more work.
[+] [-] esotericn|6 years ago|reply
- be owned by the individuals that live there if they choose to do so (renting should be a choice; owning should have similar accessibility)
- have a sensible framework for both renting and ownership that empowers the individuals actually living there e.g. no onerous lease crap or leasehold shenanigans
- actually be built e.g. kill off silly zoning
This sounds like none of those.
In most countries established interests block it. Hacking around it by just deciding that the way previous generations lived a happy life is inaccessible now and everyone should just live in Uber Flats is not the answer, sorry.
[+] [-] fyfy18|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wpietri|6 years ago|reply
I mean, why not both? I think the problem is real, and I think modern housing approaches are driven by patterns and drives that are woefully outdated. I think there must be more humane, more collaborative ways to live.
On the other hand, I can name a lot of companies that market to real problems but clearly care much more about massive revenue than making any real difference.
[+] [-] asdafdssad|6 years ago|reply
Consider that cities in N. America either have homes with large lots or condos with maximum 2 bedrooms (the price for 3 bedrooms or more scale non-linearly). Therefore it is very difficult to have a family of 4+ in an apartment.
The homes with large lots create areas with too low density which cause our transportation woes (long commutes, highways, infeasibility of public transport).
The 2 bedroom condo building are also often high-rises, which are also terrible (density is too high, making transportation near the building very difficult - just see the jams caused by people getting out of the high rise in the morning).
A more sensible, IMHO, is to have apartment blocks no taller than 8 stories with a good mix of 1, 2, and three bedroom units. These are found in poorer developed countries where the middle class could not necessarily afford a car, never mind two (my family in BsAs, for example in a 100 m^2, three bedroom apt)
[+] [-] aidenn0|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colechristensen|6 years ago|reply
I'm not interested in living in a cubbyhole inside a co-working space.
[+] [-] esotericn|6 years ago|reply
Almost all of these places look super depressing, like something out of American Psycho.
I'd expect the common room to look like a makerspace, or Grandma's house, or an artist's studio, or a game room, or maybe each corner of it is different, whatever.
[+] [-] chrisseaton|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xDEFC0DE|6 years ago|reply
Bit of a creepy sounding sentence with that name
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lazyguy2|6 years ago|reply
Since it's such 1984-speak.
Years ago they called these things tenement buildings. Although the word can mean any multi-home building, it usually is used (at least in the USA) as a reference to high capacity, low footprint, urban living arrangements.
So, yeah. It's a nice way to solve housing crisis for relatively low income living, but don't act like it's some sort of innovation that people are going to find super desirable. Because most people won't. Some people do, but most people kinda want their own house.
[+] [-] i_am_nomad|6 years ago|reply
Tenement buildings -> Co-living
Serfdom -> Gig economy
Mass propaganda -> Targeted content
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sys_64738|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jccalhoun|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madengr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisseaton|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hexo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tempsy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buboard|6 years ago|reply