Sharing a fixed quantity of floorspace with more roommates isn't "easing a housing crunch", it's just accepting less floorspace, something we all do with commodities like floorspace.
What would actually ease a housing crunch would be more floorspace, so that floorspace owners had less pricing power.
The model has been slow to spread in the US because the government doesn't own such a huge share of the housing stock, and outside of basic zoning, do not involve themselves in the planning or construction of new units. Unlike Zurch where the government owns 1 out of 5 units, apparently, and even then feels the need to involve itself deeply in the planning and construction of anything new.
My personal "solution" to housing problems in the US was to move into an RV. I also get 400 sq ft, which are all mine, and I get a lot which has a nice yard with a tree that gives generous shade, and a fence enclosing the lot on three sides. I pay a similar amount in space rent ($1000/mo in Northern CA) and my RV is paid off. It also means I can move to a new city with relatively little difficulty should that need arise.
I arrived at this because the idea of cohabitating or even living in a wood framed apartment building with 50 (or more) other units surrounding me simply became untenable. I would have loved to buy a house, but the housing and labor markets being what they are, this was the best I could come up with.
When I was in college I read Dante’s inferno. Our copy was great because it showed the English translation on one page and the Italian on the opposing page so even without knowledge of the the original language you could get a feel for the tone and rhythm of his epic imagining of a trip through hell.
I’m pretty sure this article title is the name of one of the lost chapters of Inferno. I’m not sure which mortal sin one would commit in order to be sentenced there in the afterlife, maybe the owners and creators of RealPage are candidates for creating the algorithmic price collusion tool for landlords.
> One group particularly well-suited to cohousing is the elderly. A 2022 survey of Zurich residents over the age of 55 found that 80% would like to live in a multigenerational household and half were interested in cohousing, which offers companionship and a supportive community without a move into a retirement home.
First, 55 is not elderly. I know the author did not say it is, but the next sentence prompted an audible "Oh, hells no" from me!
Second, people I know do a terrible job planning for their future re: aging. They overestimate their energy and health at X age. For example, they have no idea of how health can quickly spiral and make everything else more of a challenge. They have no idea about what kinds of supports and services they will need. And while companionship is important, relying on non-family for some or many challenges associated with getting older is foolish, unsustainable, fill-in-the-blank.
I've long wondered whether cohousing as described in the article along with a smidge of old-time settlement houses would be more beneficial to residents, particularly older ones. In my head, I've thought that returning to on-site staff along with professional visitors (health, etc.) would make the sweet spot.
In the US at least, we need to do more and do better regarding housing, community support (neighbors, not services), and addressing those who may need more help than others (older, chronically ill, etc.). Cohousing may be part of the solution.
8 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 25.5 ms ] threadWhat would actually ease a housing crunch would be more floorspace, so that floorspace owners had less pricing power.
My personal "solution" to housing problems in the US was to move into an RV. I also get 400 sq ft, which are all mine, and I get a lot which has a nice yard with a tree that gives generous shade, and a fence enclosing the lot on three sides. I pay a similar amount in space rent ($1000/mo in Northern CA) and my RV is paid off. It also means I can move to a new city with relatively little difficulty should that need arise.
I arrived at this because the idea of cohabitating or even living in a wood framed apartment building with 50 (or more) other units surrounding me simply became untenable. I would have loved to buy a house, but the housing and labor markets being what they are, this was the best I could come up with.
First, 55 is not elderly. I know the author did not say it is, but the next sentence prompted an audible "Oh, hells no" from me!
Second, people I know do a terrible job planning for their future re: aging. They overestimate their energy and health at X age. For example, they have no idea of how health can quickly spiral and make everything else more of a challenge. They have no idea about what kinds of supports and services they will need. And while companionship is important, relying on non-family for some or many challenges associated with getting older is foolish, unsustainable, fill-in-the-blank.
I've long wondered whether cohousing as described in the article along with a smidge of old-time settlement houses would be more beneficial to residents, particularly older ones. In my head, I've thought that returning to on-site staff along with professional visitors (health, etc.) would make the sweet spot.
In the US at least, we need to do more and do better regarding housing, community support (neighbors, not services), and addressing those who may need more help than others (older, chronically ill, etc.). Cohousing may be part of the solution.