It doesn't sound a whole lot different than my current living situation or former living situations. I currently rent a bedroom in a 3 bedroom apartment with 3 other people, share a shower with one roommate, and keep 99% of my possessions in my room because my roommates like to party and I don't want stuff stolen or broken. It's not a great situation for dating or being social and I have to be extremely efficient with space, but the room works well as an affordable place to crash after work.
The renegotiation of the social contract to remove any element of personal space (cubicles to bullpens, cars to crush-loaded buses, and now studios to barracks) is many things, but it isn’t progress. As someone with deep-seated needs for alone time and private space, “our culture’s obsessive individualism” is awesome and it’s deeply disturbing to see it evaporate.
>ut as a solution for graduates jumping into their middle-income city gig I think it’s brilliant and a healthy shift away from our culture’s obsessive individualism.
Not serving the poor does nothing to solve the problem of people with big salaries pricing out the locals.
If a room costs X and an apartment costs X + 100 and the rich people can afford either enough of them will choose the apartments to raise the price of apartments and out compete the poor people who want those same apartments.
Nothing less than sheer volume of available houses within a reasonable distance of wherever everyone wants to be solves the housing problem.
The risks really seem to come in if you use this model to serve the poor. But as a solution for graduates jumping into their middle-income city gig I think it’s brilliant and a healthy shift away from our culture’s obsessive individualism.
So pay for a place to live and all your regular social responsibilities like cleanliness and paying for services on time are just taken care of...? That doesn't seem like a great way to transition into adulthood at all.