
Dorm living for professionals comes to SF - tarr11
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/technology/dorm-living-grown-ups-san-francisco.html
======
mb_72
“I feel like I’m in a relationship with everyone I live with,” Ms. Ndrepepaj
said. “If their day is bad, your day is bad.”

Hardly a selling point. As an introvert it's just within my capabilities
living with my wife and playful cat; living in such an environment would be a
nightmare for me. The article fails to address the 'bad roommate' situation,
which _always_ happens sooner or later with these shared-living environments.

~~~
whatshisface
Nobody is so extroverted that they want to have other people peering in to
their lives every moment of the day (unless they are walking so closely in
lockstep with culture that there's literally nothing about them that could
cause friction.)

There's a reason why people born in compressed, shared living conditions tend
to buy houses when they can. If you don't live in a "dorm" you can control
your environment, for example not seeing friends while you're sick with the
flu and highly contagious (and no fun to be around).

To me this looks like a slide back in to 1800s non-rich living conditions sold
as a step forwards.

~~~
Consultant32452
Globalism is going to lead to an averaging out of the standards of living
across the globe. People from wealthy nations are in for a rude awakening.

~~~
jadedhacker
That's only somewhat true. It will smooth out living standards as it crushes
working people down by exploiting the lowest wages anywhere in the globe.
Simultaneously, the wealthy bourgeoisie will become richer and richer until
the internal contradiction in capitalism, that profits come from consumers
that must work for wages, tears the system asunder.

The system that follows will likely be fascism, the seamless merger of
corporations with the state to force exploited workers to work, or socialism,
the people taking control of the government and using it to expropriate the
rich in favor of workers. EDIT: Note that this doesn't require central
planning, the rad idea these days are socialisms based on co-ops where
employees own the organization they are a part of.

If the system is fascist, living standards will sharply drop for everyone
subjected to that system. If the system is a form of socialism, then yes
differences will even out. The GDP of the United States divided by its
population is roughly 55k in today's dollars, though certain services like
medicine and housing will have their profits expropriated so 55k will go much
further. If we look at world GDP, the income of all people will be closer to
11k USD, which might be barely livable, but will eradicate extreme poverty
across the globe.

We have a lot of work to do to treat humanity well and in a way the planet can
survive.

~~~
closeparen
Years-long waiting lists for apartments shared with many strangers are the
historical norm under socialist housing schemes and the only evidence-based
expectation were we to implement one today.

This _despite_ central-planning allocation of graduates to work assignments
and no freedom of internal movement. This alone would probably "solve" the
housing crises in major cities today: just stop letting people move to them in
such massive numbers.

A coworker who grew up in Soviet-era Moscow remarked that it wasn't all bad -
homelessness basically didn't exist - but each nuclear family (let alone
individual) getting their own home is a development of the contemporary West's
uniquely hyper-capitalist and hyper-atomized society. Embracing
collectivization is not going to make it easier to get your own home.

~~~
jadedhacker
I really appreciate your perspective. I'm still learning about all of this. My
understanding is that most often these setups were started in relatively poor
countries that didn't have enough housing to start with. That is not the case
in the US where many houses remain vacant in the face of homelessness so that
speculators can speculate.

In China, they are building entire ghost cities and then filling them as fast
as they can. In the Soviet Union, my understanding is that the economy was out
of wack because of the need to build the military to defend against Western
aggression. If those resources were diverted to the civilian sector, perhaps
there would have been more and nicer housing?

EDIT: Even in a capitalist country I'm still living with roommates, and this
is part of a trend for younger people. That kind of takes the bite out of the
criticism that capitalism offers more freedom in that regard. Such freedom
once existed, but it has been declining.

EDIT2: I like my roommates. Not dissing them at all. :)

~~~
closeparen
The problem in both cases is urbanization. Soviet central planners explicitly
set out to industrialize their agrarian society; market forces are moving
America's center of gravity from the Midwestern factory to the coastal R&D
office. As populations move (or are ordered to move) to follow these changes,
it creates blight and abandonment in the places they leave and a housing
crunch in the places they head to.

The empty houses are in the places that are no longer economically relevant;
the housing crises are in the places everyone is moving to.

The Soviets responded by building space-efficient housing in cities as fast as
they could, which was just not fast enough. American cities are actively
refusing to let this happen at any significant scale.

We would first need these cities to decide to _want_ enough housing for their
ballooning populations. Then we could argue over whether the state or private
developers should build it.

~~~
jadedhacker
What you say makes a lot of sense. My understanding of why people moved out of
the urban core in the first place was "white flight". People are moving back
now, and the people living in the cities, typically the wealthier inhabitants,
resist building any tall residential buildings, though they are happy to build
upscale homes and businesses that kick out the poor.

------
adrianmonk
This article says it's "an unusual experiment", but how is this different from
an SRO?

[http://www.ccsroc.net/s-r-o-hotels-in-san-
francisco/](http://www.ccsroc.net/s-r-o-hotels-in-san-francisco/)

Description from this article of the "experiment": "Shared bathrooms at the
end of the hall and having no individual kitchen or living room".

Description from the SRO web site link above: "A typical S.R.O. is a single
eight (8) x ten (10) foot room with shared toilets and showers down the
hallway."

As the SRO web site points out, these have been around in San Francisco
"throughout the city’s history".

~~~
cozzyd
I suppose SRO's are somewhat stigmatized as being for the extremely indigent,
although I think this wasn't always the case:

[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-
sro...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-sro-wilson-
men-hotel-20180111-story.html)

Nothing wrong with them in principle (assuming they're well kept / safe). If
you're single, it might be a better option than renting a random place with
roommates.

------
djrobstep
Last time I was in SF I stayed near the Tenderloin area: I've never seen
anything like that level of homelessness, neglect and dysfunction in any other
first world country.

The existence of such conditions in a city of billionaires is shameful shit.

The US economy generates over $100k per household, and people are living on
the street, or crammed into dorm rooms? It's a cruel, obscene disgrace.

~~~
readhn
I was shocked as well. All these leading tech companies, some of the richest
people on Earth and can't fix the house they live in?

It is such a bizarre contrast to see so much wealth and people living in card
boxes on the streets.

No body cares enough to actually get it fixed.

~~~
Noos
The problem is that you'd have to resort to involuntary commitment and/or
lifetime arrest of some form to get them off, and no one likes opening that
can of worms. You can build all the apartments you like, and run all the job
programs you can; if the person wont take his meds, or can't stay off drugs of
his own volition, he will end up back on the street.

------
pcurve
What a depressing article. It almost reads like a satire. 10 years ago, this
would be an article in the Onion instead of NYT.

------
zootam
> to turn into dorm rooms for the middle class.

let's be real here, the middle class in the bay area/SF makes $250k+ per
household.

there's nothing wrong with living in dorms, but there is something disturbing
about calling this the 'middle class' in SF.

~~~
Consultant32452
Median household income in SF is $78k.

~~~
zootam
i'm seeing some different information.

on wikipedia- it says $78k, but that data is apparently from 2010-2014.

[https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_...](https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml#)

newer data suggests it is at least $87k, with some sources suggesting $92k+

>California Association of Realtors also estimates that the minimum qualifying
income to buy in San Francisco is $254,000 annually.

i think being in the 'middle class' should mean you have some hope of escaping
rent and actually own something reasonable.

~~~
klochner
Should, but sadly doesn’t at the moment.

We need more housing.

------
RestlessMind
While this somewhat smells as "submarine" for Starcity, I welcome these kind
of innovations (or reinventions of wheels, if you prefer). For introverts or
families or elderly, we should of course have other types of housing. But
variety of options is the key for a diverse society. Not everyone needs a
single family of a giant townhome straight out of college. Having this kind of
housing is a great option for new grads who don't have to waste tons of money
on living spaces they don't really need. It also opens up socializing avenues,
which is good for normal people.

------
VectorLock
These are SROs in the Tenderloin. Funny how this article never mentioned the
word "SRO."

------
pmoriarty
I wish there was some way to reduce the randomness of finding people to live
with, and increase the odds of compatibility.

Maybe something like Ok Cupid for roommates.

~~~
fern12
I agree. Moving is a big decision, and it's hard to gauge what a person is
like after only one meeting. Also, as I've learned the hard way, many people
have different understandings of what it means to be "quiet."

------
jondishotsky
Hello everyone! I am Jon Dishotsky, the CEO and co-founder of Starcity. I
would be happy to answer any questions directly about what we're working on.

------
saudioger
Why can't the vast majority of these people work remotely yet? For a group of
people who often praise the concept of meritocracy, regionally locking down
your employee pool seems insane.

~~~
pmorici
The article makes it sound like a lot of them are service and retail sector
type workers not exactly remote job material

------
charmander_IRL
Seems like this could be avoided if they just change the zoning laws to allow
more vertical development. People talk about earthquakes but Japan has
managed.

------
kraig911
I sincerely hope this doesn't start a precedent for our industry or for other
places in this country. Stuff is hard enough as it is...

------
forkLding
I do feel like this is the future trend of things for urban workers, either
gradually work remote from a faraway affordable location, commute all day or
live in an affordable dorm-like room with a community.

------
briga
Ah,the American dream. Go through four years of college and 100k of student
loans so you can live in a $2400 dorm room while barely making ends meet.

I'm moving to the Bay area in a few months and these sorts of stories make me
question whether it's the right move.

~~~
dokem
You go to SF to launch your career then GTFO ASAP to a less 'enlightened' part
of the US where you don't have to worry about hyper sensitivity and your
dollar actually counts for something.

~~~
stale2002
It depends. The big X tech companies, and hot unicorns in the bay area pay
crazy salaries for engineers.

3k a month doesn't seem too bad when you are making 200k+, which is close to
~triple what you'd make in some rando mid sized city.

Working for the average SF startup though? Yeah, you'd be better off somewhere
else.

~~~
BadassFractal
Are that many SF tech workers making over 200 grand a year?

~~~
pmorici
I hope so. If they aren’t then they would be better off finding work in some
other part of the country.

------
LearnerHerzog
I love this. I may start looking for jobs in the bay area if it has a decent
jr-mid RoRails job market

------
wheresmyusern
this is absolutely fascinating. why cant these people just commute from
pleasant hill or even lafayette? i had the same accommodations as these people
and paid only 400 in pleasant hill.

~~~
yellowapple
Or Sacramento, as my dad and stepmom did when I was growing up, and as many of
my friends and family continue to do.

Yeah, the length of the commute sucks, but taking AmTrak+BART gives you some
downtime instead of sitting in traffic.

------
ionised
So...living like a student well into adulthood.

Doesn't sound very appealing.

