
'Co-living': the end of urban loneliness or cynical corporate dormitories? - laurex
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/03/co-living-the-end-of-urban-loneliness-or-cynical-corporate-dormitories
======
slovenlyrobot
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

~~~
tomatotomato37
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.

~~~
inetknght
> _One of the unfortunate realities about the housing crisis is that you need
> crappy shitholes if you want complete housing coverage_

A more unfortunate reality about the housing crisis is the idea that we need
crappy shitholes because wealthy elite want their own home prices ever higher
out of reach from normal people.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That seems a non-sequitur. In a free market, the price isn't driven by what
the owner 'wants'. Throwing 'wealthy elite' in there seems like snobbery. That
sentence doesn't mean anything.

A more interesting observation is, as population grows yet city infrastructure
stagnates, housing prices go up. Something like that, that has actual logic
behind it.

~~~
maxerickson
Housing isn't a free market, it's heavily regulated, with a healthy amount of
influence from wealthy interests going into that regulation.

Like, how do you observe the stagnation and not connect it to regulation?

~~~
mikepurvis
Just blaming "regulation" without qualification is a little vague for my
tastes. There are important reasons why we don't just allow anyone to come
along and build anything anywhere. Some of those reasons are really good—
neighbourhood character, height limits, flood/ecology/watershed management,
traffic management, etc.

And some are bad or over-used, like parking minimums, and the various barriers
that prevent density and walkability upgrades (low-rises, multi-unit
conversions, mixed use development).

~~~
mmanfrin
> neighbourhood character, height limits

Absolutely not. These are horrendous reasons and take much of the blame for
the housing crisis. We _must_ build upwards to house people.

~~~
bradstewart
Neighborhood character and height limits can mean a lot of things and be
implemented for different reasons. If done in the NIMBY sense of "you can't
have anything I don't like", yes it's horrendous.

But there's a reason Paris "feels" different than Dallas, or Brooklyn
different than Manhattan. A big reason I enjoy traveling is to experience
these difference "neighborhood cultures". Without some restrictions, you risk
destroying what makes a city special.

I'm not making any sort of value judgment here--it's not up to me alone to
decide "character is more important than housing" (or vise versa), and I won't
pretend to know where to draw the line on those restrictions.

Height restrictions are often put in place because the underlying
infrastructure (water and sewage, electrical grids, traffic/roads) and
occasionally even the ground itself simply cannot support a high rise every
block.

~~~
davidw
Part of the reason Paris feels different is that they've mostly allowed the
city to grow up, everywhere, instead of just a few places. The latter is more
likely to lead to not very friendly feeling skyscrapers without a lot at the
street, human level.

And it also helps a lot that it was not mostly built for automobiles like so
many Post-WWII cities in the US have been.

------
macawfish
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/](https://coophousing.org/)

~~~
xvedejas
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.

~~~
macawfish
I hear you, and I'm all for alternative options for living. But I'm frustrated
that for profit corporations have such a stranglehold on capital, and are
therefore in a position to dictate the physical and social infrastructure of
these spaces.

The corporate domination of capital is essentially takeover of local
governance.

~~~
xvedejas
I think the solution is a land value tax. This would take the value out of
excluding others from land. There are known solutions to this known problem,
it's the political class to blame.

------
ta1234567890
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.

~~~
tenebrisalietum
> 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.

~~~
ta1234567890
You are totally right that it's a hard sell.

At the same time, why "punish" everyone for the actions of a few?

Also, if everyone has access to a certain benefit, it's really hard to take
advantage of it in a negative way. For example you can't resell it.

I feel like toilets/showers should be something like roads, ubiquitous,
accessible to everyone and continuously maintained.

I haven't seen people complaining about trucks/busses using the roads too
much/more than them, while making money.

------
ourlordcaffeine
> The next day I got an email saying they’d seen me on CCTV with a glass in
> the smoking area and if I did it again there would be consequences

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?

------
moosey
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.

~~~
closetohome
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.

------
esotericn
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.

~~~
fyfy18
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.

~~~
esotericn
Sure. Is this a bad thing?

That's how most social housing in the UK worked until a decade or two ago.

The home I grew up in was rented by my parents for over 20 years, they
basically treated it as if they owned it.

We bought it recently because this may change at some point in the future.
Practically other than the rent not existing nothing changes.

The model of a home as being this ephemeral thing that you just sort of occupy
for a bit and then move on to the next town isn't one that most people
actually want.

It's prevalent on Hacker News because there are a ton of people here with no
family, no plans to form a family, and for whom moving around often for work
is normal. Which is fine, but it's not representative of the general
population.

~~~
vonmoltke
> Sure. Is this a bad thing?

For the people stuck owning it, yes. Why would I want to rent out a property
under those terms? I'm assuming most of the risk for the asset, but giving up
almost all control of it.

~~~
esotericn
Most people renting have far less autonomy than even that choice whether to
rent out their assets or not.

------
wpietri
> 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.

~~~
asdafdssad
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)

~~~
opportune
Yes, I have read that the reason Soviet housing blocks were generally 6-9
stories was that the planners found it to optimize density. The other main
benefit of Soviet style housing was that there were large green areas between
buildings, which we don’t have in a lot of American cities with similarly
sized apartment buildings - here they will more commonly have a very small
courtyard, bigger parking area, and otherwise go right up to the road.

~~~
madengr
They are called housing projects in the USA.

~~~
asdafdssad
Kinda. They weren't nearly as well thought out as the Soviet apt. were, and
the underlying city planning was incompatible with the design.

After all, if you're transforming your cities into a sea of asphalt and
destroying the public transportation systems, how convenient is a housing
project with thousands of units and no parking?

------
aidenn0
Prior to the baby-boom, this was a very common form of urban living, right?
Yet somehow everyone has to pretend it's new:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boarding_house](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boarding_house)

------
colechristensen
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.

~~~
esotericn
Right.

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
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.

~~~
raverbashing
Because in the military you have a lot of adults in the room running things
and those who don't play by the rules get rightened real quickly

------
0xDEFC0DE
>“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.”

Bit of a creepy sounding sentence with that name

------
lazyguy2
My vote is for "cynical corporate dormitories"

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
I’m with you on this. It’s yet another happy re-branding of unpleasant, rent-
seeking, worker-hostile things. Behold:

Tenement buildings -> Co-living

Serfdom -> Gig economy

Mass propaganda -> Targeted content

------
sys_64738
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.

------
jccalhoun
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...)

------
madengr
The “Collective” in a big block building? I assume this is a pun at the Borg,
but maybe not.

~~~
chrisseaton
No this is the original meaning of collective as a noun.

------
hexo
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

------
tempsy
Just give me a small space in the center of a major city for under $500k.

------
buboard
Sounds like Co-Suffering

------
simplecomplex
I’m sick of the political opinion pieces disguised as news that amount to
nothing more than “capitalism bad corporations evil” now dominating HN. Mostly
NYT and Gaurdian articles.

We can’t just have an article about co-living... Ugh.

------
fromthestart
>Decent joinery and inbuilt storage spares residents having to buy flat pack
furniture, while the living spaces, which all flow into an outdoor area, are
designed to encourage communal dining and social interaction

All of these spaces seem to have in common that they're absolutely hostile to
introverts who need at least some privacy and quiet. They also follow a
consistent pattern of cramming as many people into a tiny space as possible to
milk properties while billing themselves as driving some kind of positive
housing revolution.

This is just open concept for housing and the CEO who talks about doing this
out of some implied generosity is a comical stereotype of the sociopathic but
charismatic SV executive.

If you want to build a community, you need to foster a common, meaningful goal
for people to come together over, and it needs to be organic. It also helps if
the people have a common culture/heritage. You can't commercialize community
as a product to transient weekly renters from random places for any meaningful
amount of time, it just comes off as forced and artificial, like corporate
propaganda.

~~~
bilbo0s
I agree with you about the CEO and business model.

That said, I mean: > _All of these spaces seem to have in common that they 're
absolutely hostile to introverts who need at least some privacy and quiet._

That's kind of a strange complaint, because why would such a person seek out a
co-living arrangement? Wouldn't renting a studio or efficiency apartment be
more consistent with his/her personality and desires as far as living
arrangement? (And cheaper than a trendy co-living place to boot?)

~~~
fromthestart
>Wouldn't renting a studio or efficiency apartment be more consistent with
his/her personality and desires

Sure, but in the article these spaces are billed by their marketing as
solutions to the affordable housing crisis, but it seems like they're
potentially missing out on a market share and possibly creating living spaces
which are even uncomfortably open for extroverts, by being designed as
excessively open, in the same way that open concept over optimizes for design
constraint enabling collaboration to the overall detriment of comfort and
productiveness.

------
bitwize
Here's how to do it on the cheap in Boston metro: Go to Craigslist, go to
apartments for rent by owner, and look for a room that matches your balance of
affordability, location, size, and amenities. Meet with the landlord to see it
beforehand, be sure to discuss things like leaks, mold, and pests, and if you
think you have a winner, move in. You will probably be sharing an apartment
with three or four or five other people, but hey, that's Massachusetts. (The
Ylvis song "Massachusetts" even makes reference to this.) You won't have to
pay a finder's fee to some agency, you will be dealing directly with your
landlord, and you won't find yourself in a situation that looks like it'll
rapidly degenerate into a Focus Features dystopian art film. (Seriously? "The
Collective"? You want to convince people you're _not_ shit-tier offbrand
Orwell with a name like that?)

~~~
paggle
That’s a solution to housing, not urban loneliness.

~~~
bitwize
You'll be all up on the lives of at least three other people -- some of whom
figure as long as we live together, why not go out for pizza every now and
then. At this point, whether you're sharing a by-owner apartment or shacking
up with The Collective, your loneliness is largely a function of how
aggressively you choose to sequester yourself from the people in your
immediate environment. That is, until The Collective starts requiring neural
implants as a condition of residency...

~~~
paggle
I can say that in my college dorm, one of the essential things was that the
people near me were not random. They were my same age in the same college and
in the 700 people who lived there a lot shared my interests. That’s what these
facilities are trying to recreate, not just having a Homo sapiens within ten
feet.

