Degrading quality to achieve a price point does not make something more affordable. It masks how expensive all the other options have become. This is the housing equivalent of shrinkflation.
Degrading quality to achieve a price point does not make something more affordable. It masks how expensive all the other options have become.
The opposite of shrinkflation is only selling large quantities, so people have to buy more than they need and the rest goes to waste. Restaurants often do that, with "generous" portions to justify...
The opposite of shrinkflation is only selling large quantities, so people have to buy more than they need and the rest goes to waste. Restaurants often do that, with "generous" portions to justify higher prices. (You can often take food home, but what if you didn’t want to?)
You don't benefit from shopping at Costco unless you're buying something where you will actually use it all before it goes bad. (Though, sometimes you can split the purchase with a friend.)
In this case, it's true that renters are getting less housing, but for someone who just needs a bed and would rather save money, that's the right amount of housing for them. The decline of SRO's is part of what lead to the housing crisis.
It's a question of balance, as with a lot of regulatory issues. Running with the Costco example, there's a lower limit where something's considered unfit for human consumption regardless of how...
It's a question of balance, as with a lot of regulatory issues. Running with the Costco example, there's a lower limit where something's considered unfit for human consumption regardless of how cheap it might be - society as a whole has decided that there's a point beyond which you can no longer say "it's better than nothing". There are also a lot of people who'd love to shop at Costco, especially for nonperishables, and would be better off financially and nutritionally if they were able to - but they simply can't due to access or cashflow or a combination of both (insert Vimes boots theory here). We treat food safety as a societal choice but treat nutritional content and package size as a personal choice, and that's reasonable in a big picture sense, but it masks a reality where it's not really a choice at all for a significant number of people.
Very much the same goes for housing. You could argue that people would be even worse off if the cheap but bad options went away - you can even argue that they aren't necessarily bad options for some subset of people. And in some cases I'll probably agree, I've primarily spent my life living in absurdly expensive cities and I've definitely rolled my eyes at some minimum space requirements when I'd rather live somewhere than be priced out. But you also have to recognise that one person's freedom of choice is another's forced hand, and draw a line past which you say "this is dragging society as a whole down, the race to the bottom stops here". If you strike the right balance (as I understand it the early FDA was a good example of this, going back to the groceries example) you don't take away options, you just force providers to increase their standards rather than normalising and embedding a harmful baseline.
Where do sleeping pods sit on that spectrum? I'm not sure. Teetering on the line, I'll say that much. My gut says to me it's already over the line in a negative way, and in terms of the society we want the line is far gone given that we're having this conversation at all. But I can't say with 100% confidence that I'd be fully against the idea as a less than ideal patch on our imperfect reality if my twenty-year-younger self were offered a life changing opportunity and I had to scrape together what little I had and move to a city I couldn't afford in any other way.
IMO it's very much on the "OK" side of the line. To use the food analogy, the analogy of "unsafe food" is like an apartment that's full of black mold that'll give you lung disease in a few months....
Where do sleeping pods sit on that spectrum? I'm not sure. Teetering on the line, I'll say that much.
IMO it's very much on the "OK" side of the line. To use the food analogy, the analogy of "unsafe food" is like an apartment that's full of black mold that'll give you lung disease in a few months.
Size is something that's very much negotiable. I'd imagine the residents don't plan on spending much more than their sleeping hours here; that's perfectly fine. What else is a city for? You work at work, you can relax in one of the many parks, you can chill at a cafe, you can hang out at a restaurant. You can do that and be healthy - arguably, someone like that touches grass more than a shut-in who spends all their time in their home.
The standards we should maintain should be about the cleanliness of the housing, and proper safety measures like fire access. Size - we should have all different kinds of sizes. It's not only highly subjective, but also depends on your state of life - someone with a family is going to want bigger housing than someone single, and that's OK. The single person shouldn't be forced to buy more space than they need because it's the only thing on the market.
There was a tangent I nodded towards but didn’t write out about the fundamental line of safety, because yeah, that is kinda where we’ve collectively come to on these questions at the moment. You...
There was a tangent I nodded towards but didn’t write out about the fundamental line of safety, because yeah, that is kinda where we’ve collectively come to on these questions at the moment. You can’t put lead in people’s food, but you can put as much sugar and fat as you want. You can’t block the fire escape, but you can live in a shoebox if you’ll fit.
And honestly I think that’s a pretty decent line, as far as things go. Like I said, I could even have seen my younger self making use of a living arrangement like this, although I wouldn’t have been thrilled about it even then.
But I do still question the second order effects enough that I’m not fully comfortable about it. Unlike a lot of things I can be very opinionated on it’s not even that I think I’m right about it per se, it’s just… prodding the boundary of my internal compass for “individual choice vs collective good” in a way that makes me pensive.
Because to an extent, we as a society get what we collectively accept and tolerate. Obviously that’s not the only factor, there are also practical limits to what’s plausible - and even in...
Because to an extent, we as a society get what we collectively accept and tolerate.
Obviously that’s not the only factor, there are also practical limits to what’s plausible - and even in situations where there aren’t, “collectively changing what we tolerate in order to demand better” is absurdly difficult to make happen in practice - but it applies to employment rights, food quality and nutrition, acceptable housing, healthcare model, and many many other comparable things. They all can be done in ways that are better or worse for overall quality of life, and to a reasonable degree the level provided in any given country is correlated to how aggressively the population as a whole will demand that level for that particular thing. If a given baseline for “acceptable” isn’t almost universally defended by the population, it’ll generally be degraded in a way that grinds the average down for everyone so that providers can increase their margins.
So it concerns me for the potential that it will in time be normalised, bringing quality down and price up by one more notch across the board, because people won’t be angry enough about it to say a unanimous “no”. As I put it in another reply, even though I also see safety as a sensible overall baseline, this rubs up against my sense of “individual choice vs collective good” in an uncomfortable way.
To me this is sort of like saying hostels or homeless shelters or college dorms or living in a van shouldn’t be allowed so that they don’t become normalized. There are obvious downsides to any of...
To me this is sort of like saying hostels or homeless shelters or college dorms or living in a van shouldn’t be allowed so that they don’t become normalized. There are obvious downsides to any of these kinds of accommodations so I wouldn’t expect them to become mainstream, but they serve a need and I don’t see why this shouldn’t become normalized, among a small segment of the population for one part of their lives. (Not families, obviously.)
If hostels or homeless shelters were run for profit, I'd likely be expressing similar concerns about incentive structures and wider implications [edit: and people absolutely do express related...
If hostels or homeless shelters were run for profit, I'd likely be expressing similar concerns about incentive structures and wider implications [edit: and people absolutely do express related concerns about extended stay motels, for example]. As charities or public services, they fill the need of a true safety net, not the bottom of the market.
College dorms are an interesting one, actually, because I split my time at university between the UK and US and the difference was stark in favour of the UK university when it came to accommodation - because at least at that time and for those particular universities, it was treated as an at-cost service for students at the UK one and a profit centre for the university at the US one. The fact it's normalised for young adults to share rooms without privacy in US university accommodation is a perfect example of "we get what we demand", actually.
Again, all that said, it's not even that I'm dead set against this idea; it just makes me twitchy. It just feels like another collective example of compromising to accept worse rather than forcefully demanding a realistically achievable "better".
Fwiw as someone that works in housing and a public school, we aren't allowed to "profit" and the money we charge reflects the costs of the building and repairs, staff both professional and...
Fwiw as someone that works in housing and a public school, we aren't allowed to "profit" and the money we charge reflects the costs of the building and repairs, staff both professional and student, paying our cleaning staff and maintenance staff, paying for our keys to be made, for student programming and activities, as well as contributing overhead to things like the campus police dept (and paying their overtime for move in and stuff.). The one thing we can do is put money into reserves for long term planning (though institutions have gotten better at finding ways to grab from those) because replacing elevators, water heaters, carpets, paint, and such in large and often old buildings is expensive. (It really feels like in the 60s and 70s we put asebestos in everything, you know so it wouldn't catch on fire, perfect solution.). We honestly should charge more than we do, especially as our minimum wage has gone up, and the cost of everything has increased faster than we've raised our rates. The only real other way to increase income is bringing in more summer camps and conferences, which hurts the ability to maintain those areas over breaks. But we can't delay or defer maintenance (and shouldn't) even if it's more expensive than we thought.
It was definitely not "for profit". Obviously your university may have been different and probably every student thinks we're just ripping them off for money, but none of us get paid more for increased rates.
I appreciate this, and it’s actually very reassuring to hear that state institutions are still a bit more public service oriented! I definitely should have been more specific when I said “those...
I appreciate this, and it’s actually very reassuring to hear that state institutions are still a bit more public service oriented!
I definitely should have been more specific when I said “those particular universities” and mentioned that I somehow ended up at a private US university with fees high enough that I don’t think I would’ve been allowed to breathe the air on campus without the incredible good fortune I had with scholarships. The university as a whole was technically a non profit, but when the university president is getting paid multiple millions per year (literally, her compensation broke $5m/year at one point) it seems kinda moot that the spreadsheet column is labelled “staffing costs” rather than “dividends”.
I seem to remember there was also an investigation going on into how Sodexo ended up with a very lucrative contract that ended up costing the students thousands more even than eating at local restaurants for every meal would have done, but it was many years ago and I don’t know what came of that in the end…
So on the one hand it’s very fair to say my experience was at least a bit atypical, and it’s genuinely good to know that there are a lot of US universities that absolutely don’t fit that mould. The last thing I’d want to do is tar the people who actually are on the ground working towards the goal of housing and educating people with the same brush. But on the other hand, it is still an experience that hundreds of thousands of students in the US will have, simply because the education system is set up in such a way that high budget private universities do hold an incredibly important place in the overall structure, whereas in a lot of other countries they’re barely a thing if they even exist at all.
I guess in a way it goes back to the individual choice vs good of society question? Some countries put strict limitations on all of their institutions, for the net benefit of the education system as a whole, others let some portion of the bigger “brand name” institutions go off and do their own thing in a way that really can bring unique opportunities even if that siphons away money that might otherwise be available to better maintain those state university buildings that aren’t currently able to charge enough.
Yeah I didn't want to invalidate your experience by any means, and while on the one hand you probably couldn't pay enough for me to run a university, on the other, our president is paid a small...
Yeah I didn't want to invalidate your experience by any means, and while on the one hand you probably couldn't pay enough for me to run a university, on the other, our president is paid a small fraction of that amount. (And still criticized for it) And perhaps surprisingly for the US our football coach is much more similar to that fractional amount than the higher one. Also thankfully no dining vendor, it's all in house (which still leads to accusations of ridiculous costs despite it being an all you can eat buffet and cheaper per meal than any such restaurant).
I don't have all the answers by any means, and there are definitely things I don't like that my institution is doing at any given time. There is always plenty of scandal to go around in higher ed.
I look at pictures of the same rooms from fifty years ago and they don't have the beds built immovable and attached to the walls (with a secret little cupboard and cushion that made it daybed/ couch) anymore. Students bring more stuff, want to loft beds to have more space for a desk hutch or a futon. The rooms now look much more spartan but aren't smaller, or less private and are more customizable and accessible for different needs. Students don't like to mediate with roommates anymore, no one wants to talk, nut everyone wants to shit talk in the group chat. I don't know the history of dorm rooms (a dirty word in housing I swear) in the UK and whether there's a certain way that American culture has changed in the past fifty years to make the same rooms worse? Fewer kids sharing rooms as they grow up maybe as the birth rate has dropped? Or maybe it was always bad? I don't know, but I do try to think about it.
For what it’s worth I don’t want to give the impression that my experience with the accommodation/dining/etc was horrifying or anything either! It really wasn’t, it objectively did the job, it’s...
For what it’s worth I don’t want to give the impression that my experience with the accommodation/dining/etc was horrifying or anything either! It really wasn’t, it objectively did the job, it’s just that I was paying more while getting less in pretty much every way, despite being in a lower overall CoL area, and having to do so within a system that infantilised us the whole time too, you know?
And in the interests of balance, I can unequivocally say I still loved my time there! The facilities for research and technical work were impressive as hell, the opportunities available both academically and in clubs/societies/activities were unmatched, the overall attitude and openness and enthusiasm that people shared was a breath of fresh air, and some of the professors were truly exceptional. I’m grumbling about a specific part because it’s relevant, but I’d feel very unjust if I didn’t balance that out a bit!
What’s wrong with it? Genuinely it’s one of the most important parts of “the college experience”. It’s also an example of different needs. I think it’s good college students have cheaper and...
The fact it's normalised for young adults to share rooms without privacy in US university accommodation is a perfect example of "we get what we demand", actually.
What’s wrong with it? Genuinely it’s one of the most important parts of “the college experience”. It’s also an example of different needs. I think it’s good college students have cheaper and smaller housing options.
Now this is an interesting question! It’s always going to be super culturally relative, and I’m speaking as someone who didn’t grow up in the US - but some semblance of private space is very...
Now this is an interesting question! It’s always going to be super culturally relative, and I’m speaking as someone who didn’t grow up in the US - but some semblance of private space is very important to me. Doesn’t need to be a lot of space, just needs to be somewhere I can escape to. Worth underlining here that I was and am talking about sharing rooms as a negative, not just about the “bunch of bedrooms with shared kitchen and common space” style of living, which I think totally makes sense for students (and potentially even into later life, depending on setup), and absolutely does help to foster that social experience in a way that more isolated apartments wouldn’t.
So why am I framing room sharing at US universities as a bad thing rather than just a personal preference? Because I think it is seen as a bad thing in a US cultural context more broadly, it’s just common enough in this one specific scenario that people don’t think about it so much. We’re talking about a famously individualistic culture with a high value placed on ownership and independence - one where moving into one’s own space as soon as possible is idealised, and where even siblings in their early-to-mid-teens would be given some amount of sympathy for having to share a room with each other if there isn’t space for them to have their own.
The fact that young adults, often total strangers in their first independent living situation, aren’t afforded a space of their own that won’t be interfered with, or the privacy to just exist unobserved after a long day, or the agency to choose when to go to sleep without coordinating with a stranger, or even just somewhere that they can bring a date back to at the end of the evening, just seems like a poor deal as judged against all the major US cultural touchstones.
If we were talking about a country with a pervasive tradition of close multigenerational households, or a nomadic society with a necessarily very different approach to shared spaces, or whatever else I’d be saying “that’d be difficult for me to deal with but I understand that other places do things differently”. Thing is, the US doesn’t do things differently on this one in general - if anything there’s an even stronger focus on bigger, more private, more separated spaces than even the UK - it’s just a very specific carve out for students in particular that seems to give them the short end of the stick.
That's really a post WW2 baby-boomer era thing. Before WW2, only 13% of Americans lived in suburbs, with the majority living in co-living arrangements, rather than single family homes. W.r.g to...
We’re talking about a famously individualistic culture with a high value placed on ownership and independence... Thing is, the US doesn’t do things differently on this one in general
That's really a post WW2 baby-boomer era thing. Before WW2, only 13% of Americans lived in suburbs, with the majority living in co-living arrangements, rather than single family homes.
W.r.g to college student, it's fundamentally because it's temporary. College is about broadening your horizons - previously, most people only lived in one world: the home of their family. College is where you get thrown into the deep end - you'll have to suddenly figure out the social norms of co-habitations, living and dealing with other people, conflict resolution.
And it's a give and take - in a dorm, you usually don't have to clean anything other than your immediate half of the room, you don't need to cook, you don't need to pay utilities, laundry rooms are provided, you don't have to deal with for-profit landlords.
There's a long history of young people being "forced" to live and work together as part of a maturation ritual.
I've also never seen a college where you couldn't get a single, if you wanted. It's just both expensive, and often framed as a bad thing by other college students - the stereotype is that these people (who are also often international students) are missing out on the social aspects of dorming.
Dorms at my university in Germany were all singles, and the other benefits of co-living you cite were all still pretty applicable. But dorms at universities there are also not mandatory and much...
Dorms at my university in Germany were all singles, and the other benefits of co-living you cite were all still pretty applicable. But dorms at universities there are also not mandatory and much cheaper than local non-dorm housing, with the tradeoff that there's a waiting period to get in because they're pretty much always full. You were also allowed to use the communal kitchen to make your meals if you wanted, or to buy your meals at the university cafeterias, where you paid quite low prices per-meal rather than having an expensive pre-paid meal plan. Even before you factor in the differences in how tuition works, it served as a much more sensible budget option for students compared to dorms at the university I attended in the US, which required you to get an expensive meal plan if you lived there and cost enough more than local apartments that the university had to artificially force second-year students to live on campus by forbidding them from doing otherwise (my year at my US uni was the last one to only be required to live on campus for your first year, so it's fresh in my mind).
I also haven't spoken to my college roommate in the US since we lived together freshman year, because just being forced to share the same tiny room for a year doesn't automatically make you friends, and we had no other social connections. My social life in college was still great and my friends lived in other dorms. I think sharing apartments or dorm buildings does make sense at that stage in life, but I don't think being forced to share a bedroom actually improves things socially or culturally on the whole, it just lets the university house more people in the same amount of space.
The thing is, without this type of option, in the US, the alternative currently is homeless on the sidewalk. If we had a social safety net for housing that was government funded in adequate...
The thing is, without this type of option, in the US, the alternative currently is homeless on the sidewalk. If we had a social safety net for housing that was government funded in adequate supply, I would be more sympathetic to your argument.
In the US, section 8 housing subsidies are available for some poor people, some of the time. But many have no adequate options.
Like where, the suburbs? That's actually where almost all of the tech companies are. People mistakenly consider SF to be in, or of, "silicon valley", but it's not. The tech companies are in... the...
Like where, the suburbs? That's actually where almost all of the tech companies are. People mistakenly consider SF to be in, or of, "silicon valley", but it's not. The tech companies are in... the valley, in south bay, where it's nothing but single family homes, for better or for worse.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. There are parts of Mountain View that are all apartment buildings, and a lot of new construction of five-over-ones in San Mateo and Sunnyvale.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. There are parts of Mountain View that are all apartment buildings, and a lot of new construction of five-over-ones in San Mateo and Sunnyvale.
Housing in the 'burbs isn't cheap either. A bit cheaper, yeah. But I know people in the city paying $1,100 for a bedroom with roommates. $700 for a pod seems like a bad deal by comparison.
Housing in the 'burbs isn't cheap either. A bit cheaper, yeah. But I know people in the city paying $1,100 for a bedroom with roommates. $700 for a pod seems like a bad deal by comparison.
I imagine those are usually group-housing/roommate situation where you’re on the hook for all the common maintenance tasks. This Pod living seems more like a hotel situation where the common areas...
I imagine those are usually group-housing/roommate situation where you’re on the hook for all the common maintenance tasks. This Pod living seems more like a hotel situation where the common areas and bathrooms are cleaned and maintained and you’re getting things serviced.
Back when I was living in group-houses it was also kind of a challenge to get into one. There was usually a fairly competitive interview process where you had to gel with the folks you’re talking to on CraigsList, and the roommates are assuming the financial risk of any one of them not being able to cover their share of the rent or communal expenses.
The city wouldn’t have to give up the vibe of having 3-stories within walking distance of transit if they just built more transit and infilled the neighborhoods around it to be more walkable....
The city wouldn’t have to give up the vibe of having 3-stories within walking distance of transit if they just built more transit and infilled the neighborhoods around it to be more walkable.
That’s basically how development in the Washington DC area worked. There’s long stretches of density all along the metro that have developed to resemble downtown DC and its denser residential corridors. It’s taken some of the housing price pressure off, but it’s always surprising to me how much of the area outside of SF/Oakland is just detached homes and suburban style gated communities. Fresno isn’t an agricultural town anymore! Why is it zoned like one!?
Building more transit is absolutely the way; including a Bay Area-wide underground rail system outside of San Francisco (since BART is really just a medium-range commuter system.) But in the...
Building more transit is absolutely the way; including a Bay Area-wide underground rail system outside of San Francisco (since BART is really just a medium-range commuter system.) But in the absence of that public transportation, more housing just puts more people onto the roads, and the roads are already basically at capacity anywhere close to rush hour.
The public transportation is underfunded, which means people won't use it, which means they drive, which means the capacity for more housing is limited by the roads which can't be expanded easily, which means housing prices rise, which means the people who would use public transportation get priced out, which means public transportation can't show demand, return to the beginning.
Someone who has the vision and influence to build extensive public transportation would be amazing, but the appetite for infrastructure investment other than car infrastructure is so small. The budget for roads is funded every year without question, but other transportation has to justify every single project every time, and it just makes non-car transportation advocates have to fight for every single dollar in a way that just makes everything harder.
Because it would be detrimental to the home owners who overwhelmingly vote in local elections. Just even moreso, because all the homeowners are by definition millionaires. And the young people are...
it’s always surprising to me how much of the area outside of SF/Oakland is just detached homes and suburban style gated communities.
Because it would be detrimental to the home owners who overwhelmingly vote in local elections. Just even moreso, because all the homeowners are by definition millionaires. And the young people are more often than not consider themselves transitory, there for the experience and opportunities but not particularly caring about debating old geezers in a town hall.
This is definitely part of the problem. The other part is that as compared to, for instance, New York City, where there is a top level government running the whole thing, the Bay area has 9...
This is definitely part of the problem. The other part is that as compared to, for instance, New York City, where there is a top level government running the whole thing, the Bay area has 9 counties with more than 100 municipalities across them, each an independent sinecure trying to protect their own shit. It makes coordination across the region almost impossible. Even basic transportation planning like putting in a bus lane on a major road can be held up for decades because the road goes through 5 different cities each with their own transportation priorities and voters.
Feels like a missed opportunity to compare to similar(ish) setups that have occurred in other cities/countries. I believe many high density areas have done things like this and it’d be interesting...
Feels like a missed opportunity to compare to similar(ish) setups that have occurred in other cities/countries. I believe many high density areas have done things like this and it’d be interesting to know if it’s ever beneficial or always concerning
When I moved to the area my parents gifted me a few grand to pay for a short term lease. For people without that kind of help something like this is your best option to get set up. It seems clean,...
When I moved to the area my parents gifted me a few grand to pay for a short term lease. For people without that kind of help something like this is your best option to get set up. It seems clean, safe and cheap. Honestly it's a perfectly reasonable option and I find it strange people would judge someone for taking on temporary cramped living conditions to move into such a lucrative and beautiful city. People love to talk about layoffs and the job market, but it's still the case that if you're smart and capable it won't be long before you're pulling in >$200,000.
That seems a bit optimistic? $200k puts you in the 85th percentile for individuals (source). Plenty of people will achieve that level of income, but it's not the standard.
it's still the case that if you're smart and capable it won't be long before you're pulling in >$200,000.
That seems a bit optimistic? $200k puts you in the 85th percentile for individuals (source). Plenty of people will achieve that level of income, but it's not the standard.
I think "if you're smart and capable" is a reasonable qualifier that aligns with the metrics. Not that those traits guarantee financial success. But with enough time you'll probably get a high...
I think "if you're smart and capable" is a reasonable qualifier that aligns with the metrics. Not that those traits guarantee financial success. But with enough time you'll probably get a high paying job. I know someone in SF that went from homeless with no degree to employed as a department head of a private equity firm after 2 years. He's very smart and very capable.
I don't think anyone here is judging the people using these spaces.... I am judging the people who are charging fucking $700 a month to live in a glorified IKEA display. Is it better than the...
I find it strange people would judge someone for taking on temporary cramped living conditions
I don't think anyone here is judging the people using these spaces.... I am judging the people who are charging fucking $700 a month to live in a glorified IKEA display.
Is it better than the streets? Of course. Better than a car? Debatable, but sure. Is it absolutely reprehensible that this is being touted as a "safe, clean, affordable" solution? Yes. Yes it is.
Remember boarding houses? At least with those you got a goddamn door.
I wish we still had boarding houses and many more buildings full of single room occupancy. Too many people with jobs live on the streets here in California, or share one apartment with many people.
I wish we still had boarding houses and many more buildings full of single room occupancy.
Too many people with jobs live on the streets here in California, or share one apartment with many people.
I suspect that Babypuncher was asking why not live in any other area of the country, not in any other living situation within commuting distance of San Francisco. For example, Oklahoma City has...
I suspect that Babypuncher was asking why not live in any other area of the country, not in any other living situation within commuting distance of San Francisco. For example, Oklahoma City has plenty of good paying technical jobs and studio apartments regularly go for between $700 and $800 a month. My mortgage on a 1200sq.ft. house is only $1800 a month. It would be much easier to start a career and get experience somewhere else and then try to move into the SF Bay area than to try to get started from scratch there.
There's plenty of reasons. While it still pales in comparison to NYC, SF has quite robust public transportation. You'll have to own a car and drive in OKC. SF has fantastic weather, especially if...
There's plenty of reasons. While it still pales in comparison to NYC, SF has quite robust public transportation. You'll have to own a car and drive in OKC.
SF has fantastic weather, especially if you don't like the heat. It's essentially permanently air conditioned, with temperatures locked in a narrow band from 60F to 70F all year round. It's an extremely unique climate only shared by two other places on the entire earth. OKC has the hot summers and the chilly winters of the midwest.
If you're LGBTQ, SF probably has the most vibrant community in all of the US. The same could not be said of OKC.
If you're either very politically leftward or feel unsafe in political conservative areas, SF is (famously or infamously) one of the most left-leaning areas in the US.
If you're not white, SF is much more racially diverse. SF is one of the few cities in the US where a minority of people are white (35% Asian, 32% White). Personally, this keeps me out of most of the midwest.
If you're into the eclectic art scene that SF has, few other places have it.
Food is going to be much better than OKC, especially food from non-white cultures.
Even in terms of jobs, that depends on what kind of jobs you want, and what kind of lifestyle you want. If you want a foothold into high tech, SF is just a better city than OKC.
Your points on public transit, weather, LGBTQ, left-leaning politics, these I concede. I don't necessarily disagree on racial diversity either, since I don't care enough to look up the statistics...
Your points on public transit, weather, LGBTQ, left-leaning politics, these I concede. I don't necessarily disagree on racial diversity either, since I don't care enough to look up the statistics right now, but I think you'd be surprised at how diverse OKC is. You'd also be surprised at how much excellent food is available here from all over the world, and there's a growing art scene here as well. As for what kind of jobs you want, we're one of the biggest places for aerospace (mostly high-end military and commercial aviation) in the country. Along with that we have a growing tech sector, and the city is getting more diverse with available jobs all the time.
SF might have a higher concentration of high-tech jobs, but tech jobs are also available here, and living is vastly more affordable within the salaries available here.
Besides, if enough people move out of SF to get jobs elsewhere, high tech will have to follow them, or at least accommodate remote work more.
Eh, that really presupposes the value of having a larger housing unit. In the end, this is a personal choice - do you value the experiences of a walkable, dense city, or do you value having a lot...
living is vastly more affordable within the salaries available here.
Eh, that really presupposes the value of having a larger housing unit. In the end, this is a personal choice - do you value the experiences of a walkable, dense city, or do you value having a lot of square feet?
I also wouldn't undervalue the impact of not driving to work on social lives. In my experience, people who don't drive have significantly more social interactions outside of work and home - a driving commute just kills peoples energy.
Besides, if enough people move out of SF to get jobs elsewhere, high tech will have to follow them, or at least accommodate remote work more.
That's what they said during COVID, but in practice, the only thing that happened was that a lot of tech people moved to NYC, because NYC is a better city than SF. Either way, that change, if it would happen, will likely take longer than your career, so it's a bit of a moot point.
The rub of it is that OP could not understand any reasons someone would want to live in SF. Which I find absurd. I think it's fully valid if any particular person wants to live in a McMansion in the middle of nowhere, or next to some stroad in OKC, but it's also fully valid for someone to rent a studio in SF for $1500 because they value the amenities and opportunities it has more than square footage.
That's why the rent is so high to begin with - because there's a ton of demand.
Why not both? OKC has a walkable district downtown, we call it Bricktown. That also happens to be where a lot of the best restaurants are. Apartments in that area are a teeny bit pricier, but you...
do you value the experiences of a walkable, dense city, or do you value having a lot of square feet?
Why not both? OKC has a walkable district downtown, we call it Bricktown. That also happens to be where a lot of the best restaurants are. Apartments in that area are a teeny bit pricier, but you could still get a studio for under 1k a month in that area. Admittedly you'd still probably need to drive to work or take a Lyft, but most commutes from Bricktown to anywhere in OKC are less than 20 minutes. There's just not that much traffic here, and compared to LA or SF there's not that far to go.
The rub of it is that OP could not understand any reasons someone would want to live in SF.
No, I think the rub of it is that if you're in the financial position where renting less than a closet at $700 a month makes sense, you could live far more comfortably in any large city in the part of the United States that a lot of folks traditionally dismiss as "flyover country".
I think it's fully valid if any particular person wants to live in a McMansion in the middle of nowhere, or next to some stroad in OKC...
This is frankly insulting. I live near downtown OKC, and my commute to the heart of commerce in aerospace is less than 10 minutes from my driveway to my desk. My house is in a proper neighborhood in one of the densest areas of the city, and I am most definitely not "in the middle of nowhere or next to some stroad."
it's also fully valid for someone to rent a studio in SF for $1500
Yeah, good luck with that. A quick search shows that there are no listings in SF for less than $1650 base price, not including extras, tax, etc.
My point is that the demand is misplaced. Your presumption that high-tech jobs aren't available outside of NYC or SF is incorrect. OKC offers salaries in high-tech jobs that far outstrips the cost of living, unlike the Bay Area, where the salary you're likely to get just does not go as far. The costs aren't limited to housing, either. Groceries, fuel, energy, everything in that area costs more. I know, I've been there. I've had family who used to work at Apple headquarters. Where do they live now? Arkansas, because San Jose is just not worth the cost at any plausibly available salary. Work in Arkansas offers salaries vastly larger than the cost of living compared to the Bay Area.
they value the amenities and opportunities it has more than square footage.
If you think there aren't opportunities here, or that OKC is "the middle of nowhere" then maybe you should visit and see for yourself. There's an entire country here in the middle, even if we aren't within a days drive of the east or west coast.
One use case would be for people who work in SF but have spouses and children in a house out where it is cheaper. They would only sleep there four nights per week.
One use case would be for people who work in SF but have spouses and children in a house out where it is cheaper. They would only sleep there four nights per week.
If I didn’t have a family, and I were young again, this would be fine for me. As it stands, I actually only personally use maybe 100 square feet of my apartment. I’ve stayed in capsule hotels in...
If I didn’t have a family, and I were young again, this would be fine for me. As it stands, I actually only personally use maybe 100 square feet of my apartment. I’ve stayed in capsule hotels in Japan which were even smaller and I found it enjoyable.
The number of people I’ve met willing to live like roaches in California than anywhere else has always been concerning to me. These aren’t people with careers or family there but rather those who...
The number of people I’ve met willing to live like roaches in California than anywhere else has always been concerning to me.
These aren’t people with careers or family there but rather those who uproot their lives because California will be better.
Personally I feel many deluded themselves after the reality of miserable living conditions and traffic set in, but I also could never live there long term. The “everything is 40 minutes away” life drives me nuts
That seems like an LA phenomena? We’re talking about SF. In 40 minutes you could probably walk halfway through the city.
Personally I feel many deluded themselves after the reality of miserable living conditions and traffic set in, but I also could never live there long term.
That seems like an LA phenomena? We’re talking about SF. In 40 minutes you could probably walk halfway through the city.
People seem to forget that California, by itself, is almost as big as all of Spain. It has an only slightly lower population and an economy about 3x bigger. Most people there aren’t in “miserable”...
People seem to forget that California, by itself, is almost as big as all of Spain. It has an only slightly lower population and an economy about 3x bigger.
Most people there aren’t in “miserable” living conditions, it’s actually quite glamorous for the median resident relative to most of the rest of the country. There’s people who fall through the cracks, but that’s an endemic problem across America.
While I would again point out my issues are probably more of taste (how much you hate a miserable traffic or having 5 roomates to be near the beach or good food is up to you), but I also think...
Most people there aren’t in “miserable” living conditions, it’s actually quite glamorous for the median resident relative to most of the rest of the country. There’s people who fall through the cracks, but that’s an endemic problem across America.
While I would again point out my issues are probably more of taste (how much you hate a miserable traffic or having 5 roomates to be near the beach or good food is up to you), but I also think that's not really backed by the data. Poverty in CA is slightly above average, heavily so in places like LA, and arguably even worse when you start looking at rent to income ratios and the fact that places like SF are technically fine in census data, but arguably much work when you realize how badly some people are commuting.
Yes the state is more than those cities, but at the same time LA is roughly 25% of the population while the next highest are San Diego/OC at 8%. Throw in San Bernardino and Riverside and you've got 50% of the state right there.
Poverty in LA is something like 13-15%+ last I checked (county/city distinctions and all) vs the US average of 11%. San Bernardino is another that often gets discussed as problematic, and things like SF especially look "fine" until you consider that most people who work there commute often 1hr + because they can't come anywhere near affording the cost of living
I believe it also routinely ranks in the top 10, maybe top 5 for homelessness.
It's got a lot going for it, but the median resident is far from glamorous.
If you’re below the poverty line then you’re not a median resident by definition is my point. And even being at the poverty line in SF is going to be generally better than being poor in Denver...
If you’re below the poverty line then you’re not a median resident by definition is my point. And even being at the poverty line in SF is going to be generally better than being poor in Denver because there’s more resources and support systems available there.
It doesn't seem like median income and the poverty rate (which is about people at the bottom) have much to do with each other? They're about different people. According to this chart, California...
It doesn't seem like median income and the poverty rate (which is about people at the bottom) have much to do with each other? They're about different people.
According to this chart, California median household income reached $100,000 per year in 2024. And that means half the households in the state make more than that.
Housing prices are high in part because there are a lot of people out there who can pay that much, and they're competing for housing.
Just because people are not in (often argued as inaccurately defined) poverty does not mean they live “glamorous” lives. Median income in relation to things like state income tax, cost of living,...
doesn't seem like median income and the poverty rate (which is about people at the bottom) have much to do with each other? They're about different people.
Just because people are not in (often argued as inaccurately defined) poverty does not mean they live “glamorous” lives. Median income in relation to things like state income tax, cost of living, and rent are good indicators of how difficult it can be to live somewhere.
According to this chart, California median household income reached $100,000 per year in 2024. And that means half the households in the state make more than that.
Chart is gross not adjusted. Average rent is about 2k a month. When you add the cost of living, the high income tax, mandatory driving with high gas and a plenty of other small factors it gets not great fast. Minimum wage is at about 40k and it’s miserable for the people being told that 60-80k is “plenty” when they’re still getting destroyed by rent. There’s 0 doubt they’ve also got some of the best public education but that’s hard to appreciate for the single 20-30 something’s.
Housing prices are high in part because there are a lot of people out there who can pay that much, and they're competing for housing.
We could do a whole other topic on how this is vastly simplifying the situation and the problems with housing becoming an investment asset class, but I’ll just say anecdotally I’ve known several people who live 4+ people in a one or two bedroom place to make rent because that’s the only way to make it work.
If you want another number look at homeless rates. Cali is just outside of the top 5 for a reason.
It’s a state not a utopia. There’s a lot good but I just don’t think any of this data supports a “glamorous” lifestyle for the average even compared to how rough it can be elsewhere.
Ehhhh, their housing situation is the worst in the US by many metrics. Most Californians live in the crazy expensive cities and have to deal with the worst parts of the state.
Ehhhh, their housing situation is the worst in the US by many metrics. Most Californians live in the crazy expensive cities and have to deal with the worst parts of the state.
And I think most of the people there prefer that to living in Boulder, Colorado. We infer this because they haven’t moved to Memphis despite the huge COL differences if they did so.
And I think most of the people there prefer that to living in Boulder, Colorado. We infer this because they haven’t moved to Memphis despite the huge COL differences if they did so.
I tried living outside California during covid and came back. Not everywhere will be like that, I’ve lived places I love more than California, but they are outside the country. My friends and...
I tried living outside California during covid and came back. Not everywhere will be like that, I’ve lived places I love more than California, but they are outside the country. My friends and family are here so that’s major, but outside of New York where I’ve also lived for a little while, I haven’t found places that I enjoy as much as sf or la. I do have a lifestyle that doesn’t require driving to work so that is a huge break.
I'd actually love a cheaper option like this in the bigger cities near me. I have a home in a city where my partner is setup to establish their career, whereas I've been exploring ways to work in...
I'd actually love a cheaper option like this in the bigger cities near me. I have a home in a city where my partner is setup to establish their career, whereas I've been exploring ways to work in nearby cities to open more career options.
A more affordable and more temporary option like this would suit my use case really well!
I actually have a friend who rents these spaces out to people and one of the lesser known facts about these spaces is that for an extra $30 down, you get to choose the gun you put in your mouth...
I actually have a friend who rents these spaces out to people and one of the lesser known facts about these spaces is that for an extra $30 down, you get to choose the gun you put in your mouth before bed. Believe it or not, that's a huge selling point. Also, a lot of the tenants are shy exhibitionists who are seeking the thrill of masturbating in a public space without the shame, humiliation, or potential legal consequences of doing it at a Vons or something.
Degrading quality to achieve a price point does not make something more affordable. It masks how expensive all the other options have become.
This is the housing equivalent of shrinkflation.
The opposite of shrinkflation is only selling large quantities, so people have to buy more than they need and the rest goes to waste. Restaurants often do that, with "generous" portions to justify higher prices. (You can often take food home, but what if you didn’t want to?)
You don't benefit from shopping at Costco unless you're buying something where you will actually use it all before it goes bad. (Though, sometimes you can split the purchase with a friend.)
In this case, it's true that renters are getting less housing, but for someone who just needs a bed and would rather save money, that's the right amount of housing for them. The decline of SRO's is part of what lead to the housing crisis.
It's a question of balance, as with a lot of regulatory issues. Running with the Costco example, there's a lower limit where something's considered unfit for human consumption regardless of how cheap it might be - society as a whole has decided that there's a point beyond which you can no longer say "it's better than nothing". There are also a lot of people who'd love to shop at Costco, especially for nonperishables, and would be better off financially and nutritionally if they were able to - but they simply can't due to access or cashflow or a combination of both (insert Vimes boots theory here). We treat food safety as a societal choice but treat nutritional content and package size as a personal choice, and that's reasonable in a big picture sense, but it masks a reality where it's not really a choice at all for a significant number of people.
Very much the same goes for housing. You could argue that people would be even worse off if the cheap but bad options went away - you can even argue that they aren't necessarily bad options for some subset of people. And in some cases I'll probably agree, I've primarily spent my life living in absurdly expensive cities and I've definitely rolled my eyes at some minimum space requirements when I'd rather live somewhere than be priced out. But you also have to recognise that one person's freedom of choice is another's forced hand, and draw a line past which you say "this is dragging society as a whole down, the race to the bottom stops here". If you strike the right balance (as I understand it the early FDA was a good example of this, going back to the groceries example) you don't take away options, you just force providers to increase their standards rather than normalising and embedding a harmful baseline.
Where do sleeping pods sit on that spectrum? I'm not sure. Teetering on the line, I'll say that much. My gut says to me it's already over the line in a negative way, and in terms of the society we want the line is far gone given that we're having this conversation at all. But I can't say with 100% confidence that I'd be fully against the idea as a less than ideal patch on our imperfect reality if my twenty-year-younger self were offered a life changing opportunity and I had to scrape together what little I had and move to a city I couldn't afford in any other way.
IMO it's very much on the "OK" side of the line. To use the food analogy, the analogy of "unsafe food" is like an apartment that's full of black mold that'll give you lung disease in a few months.
Size is something that's very much negotiable. I'd imagine the residents don't plan on spending much more than their sleeping hours here; that's perfectly fine. What else is a city for? You work at work, you can relax in one of the many parks, you can chill at a cafe, you can hang out at a restaurant. You can do that and be healthy - arguably, someone like that touches grass more than a shut-in who spends all their time in their home.
The standards we should maintain should be about the cleanliness of the housing, and proper safety measures like fire access. Size - we should have all different kinds of sizes. It's not only highly subjective, but also depends on your state of life - someone with a family is going to want bigger housing than someone single, and that's OK. The single person shouldn't be forced to buy more space than they need because it's the only thing on the market.
There was a tangent I nodded towards but didn’t write out about the fundamental line of safety, because yeah, that is kinda where we’ve collectively come to on these questions at the moment. You can’t put lead in people’s food, but you can put as much sugar and fat as you want. You can’t block the fire escape, but you can live in a shoebox if you’ll fit.
And honestly I think that’s a pretty decent line, as far as things go. Like I said, I could even have seen my younger self making use of a living arrangement like this, although I wouldn’t have been thrilled about it even then.
But I do still question the second order effects enough that I’m not fully comfortable about it. Unlike a lot of things I can be very opinionated on it’s not even that I think I’m right about it per se, it’s just… prodding the boundary of my internal compass for “individual choice vs collective good” in a way that makes me pensive.
It doesn’t sound like they’re unsafe, so why is this even close to the line?
Because to an extent, we as a society get what we collectively accept and tolerate.
Obviously that’s not the only factor, there are also practical limits to what’s plausible - and even in situations where there aren’t, “collectively changing what we tolerate in order to demand better” is absurdly difficult to make happen in practice - but it applies to employment rights, food quality and nutrition, acceptable housing, healthcare model, and many many other comparable things. They all can be done in ways that are better or worse for overall quality of life, and to a reasonable degree the level provided in any given country is correlated to how aggressively the population as a whole will demand that level for that particular thing. If a given baseline for “acceptable” isn’t almost universally defended by the population, it’ll generally be degraded in a way that grinds the average down for everyone so that providers can increase their margins.
So it concerns me for the potential that it will in time be normalised, bringing quality down and price up by one more notch across the board, because people won’t be angry enough about it to say a unanimous “no”. As I put it in another reply, even though I also see safety as a sensible overall baseline, this rubs up against my sense of “individual choice vs collective good” in an uncomfortable way.
To me this is sort of like saying hostels or homeless shelters or college dorms or living in a van shouldn’t be allowed so that they don’t become normalized. There are obvious downsides to any of these kinds of accommodations so I wouldn’t expect them to become mainstream, but they serve a need and I don’t see why this shouldn’t become normalized, among a small segment of the population for one part of their lives. (Not families, obviously.)
If hostels or homeless shelters were run for profit, I'd likely be expressing similar concerns about incentive structures and wider implications [edit: and people absolutely do express related concerns about extended stay motels, for example]. As charities or public services, they fill the need of a true safety net, not the bottom of the market.
College dorms are an interesting one, actually, because I split my time at university between the UK and US and the difference was stark in favour of the UK university when it came to accommodation - because at least at that time and for those particular universities, it was treated as an at-cost service for students at the UK one and a profit centre for the university at the US one. The fact it's normalised for young adults to share rooms without privacy in US university accommodation is a perfect example of "we get what we demand", actually.
Again, all that said, it's not even that I'm dead set against this idea; it just makes me twitchy. It just feels like another collective example of compromising to accept worse rather than forcefully demanding a realistically achievable "better".
Fwiw as someone that works in housing and a public school, we aren't allowed to "profit" and the money we charge reflects the costs of the building and repairs, staff both professional and student, paying our cleaning staff and maintenance staff, paying for our keys to be made, for student programming and activities, as well as contributing overhead to things like the campus police dept (and paying their overtime for move in and stuff.). The one thing we can do is put money into reserves for long term planning (though institutions have gotten better at finding ways to grab from those) because replacing elevators, water heaters, carpets, paint, and such in large and often old buildings is expensive. (It really feels like in the 60s and 70s we put asebestos in everything, you know so it wouldn't catch on fire, perfect solution.). We honestly should charge more than we do, especially as our minimum wage has gone up, and the cost of everything has increased faster than we've raised our rates. The only real other way to increase income is bringing in more summer camps and conferences, which hurts the ability to maintain those areas over breaks. But we can't delay or defer maintenance (and shouldn't) even if it's more expensive than we thought.
It was definitely not "for profit". Obviously your university may have been different and probably every student thinks we're just ripping them off for money, but none of us get paid more for increased rates.
I appreciate this, and it’s actually very reassuring to hear that state institutions are still a bit more public service oriented!
I definitely should have been more specific when I said “those particular universities” and mentioned that I somehow ended up at a private US university with fees high enough that I don’t think I would’ve been allowed to breathe the air on campus without the incredible good fortune I had with scholarships. The university as a whole was technically a non profit, but when the university president is getting paid multiple millions per year (literally, her compensation broke $5m/year at one point) it seems kinda moot that the spreadsheet column is labelled “staffing costs” rather than “dividends”.
I seem to remember there was also an investigation going on into how Sodexo ended up with a very lucrative contract that ended up costing the students thousands more even than eating at local restaurants for every meal would have done, but it was many years ago and I don’t know what came of that in the end…
So on the one hand it’s very fair to say my experience was at least a bit atypical, and it’s genuinely good to know that there are a lot of US universities that absolutely don’t fit that mould. The last thing I’d want to do is tar the people who actually are on the ground working towards the goal of housing and educating people with the same brush. But on the other hand, it is still an experience that hundreds of thousands of students in the US will have, simply because the education system is set up in such a way that high budget private universities do hold an incredibly important place in the overall structure, whereas in a lot of other countries they’re barely a thing if they even exist at all.
I guess in a way it goes back to the individual choice vs good of society question? Some countries put strict limitations on all of their institutions, for the net benefit of the education system as a whole, others let some portion of the bigger “brand name” institutions go off and do their own thing in a way that really can bring unique opportunities even if that siphons away money that might otherwise be available to better maintain those state university buildings that aren’t currently able to charge enough.
Yeah I didn't want to invalidate your experience by any means, and while on the one hand you probably couldn't pay enough for me to run a university, on the other, our president is paid a small fraction of that amount. (And still criticized for it) And perhaps surprisingly for the US our football coach is much more similar to that fractional amount than the higher one. Also thankfully no dining vendor, it's all in house (which still leads to accusations of ridiculous costs despite it being an all you can eat buffet and cheaper per meal than any such restaurant).
I don't have all the answers by any means, and there are definitely things I don't like that my institution is doing at any given time. There is always plenty of scandal to go around in higher ed.
I look at pictures of the same rooms from fifty years ago and they don't have the beds built immovable and attached to the walls (with a secret little cupboard and cushion that made it daybed/ couch) anymore. Students bring more stuff, want to loft beds to have more space for a desk hutch or a futon. The rooms now look much more spartan but aren't smaller, or less private and are more customizable and accessible for different needs. Students don't like to mediate with roommates anymore, no one wants to talk, nut everyone wants to shit talk in the group chat. I don't know the history of dorm rooms (a dirty word in housing I swear) in the UK and whether there's a certain way that American culture has changed in the past fifty years to make the same rooms worse? Fewer kids sharing rooms as they grow up maybe as the birth rate has dropped? Or maybe it was always bad? I don't know, but I do try to think about it.
For what it’s worth I don’t want to give the impression that my experience with the accommodation/dining/etc was horrifying or anything either! It really wasn’t, it objectively did the job, it’s just that I was paying more while getting less in pretty much every way, despite being in a lower overall CoL area, and having to do so within a system that infantilised us the whole time too, you know?
And in the interests of balance, I can unequivocally say I still loved my time there! The facilities for research and technical work were impressive as hell, the opportunities available both academically and in clubs/societies/activities were unmatched, the overall attitude and openness and enthusiasm that people shared was a breath of fresh air, and some of the professors were truly exceptional. I’m grumbling about a specific part because it’s relevant, but I’d feel very unjust if I didn’t balance that out a bit!
No no, I get that I'm just pondering some bigger picture things I think about with work too. I'm glad you did enjoy a lot of your experience!
What’s wrong with it? Genuinely it’s one of the most important parts of “the college experience”. It’s also an example of different needs. I think it’s good college students have cheaper and smaller housing options.
Now this is an interesting question! It’s always going to be super culturally relative, and I’m speaking as someone who didn’t grow up in the US - but some semblance of private space is very important to me. Doesn’t need to be a lot of space, just needs to be somewhere I can escape to. Worth underlining here that I was and am talking about sharing rooms as a negative, not just about the “bunch of bedrooms with shared kitchen and common space” style of living, which I think totally makes sense for students (and potentially even into later life, depending on setup), and absolutely does help to foster that social experience in a way that more isolated apartments wouldn’t.
So why am I framing room sharing at US universities as a bad thing rather than just a personal preference? Because I think it is seen as a bad thing in a US cultural context more broadly, it’s just common enough in this one specific scenario that people don’t think about it so much. We’re talking about a famously individualistic culture with a high value placed on ownership and independence - one where moving into one’s own space as soon as possible is idealised, and where even siblings in their early-to-mid-teens would be given some amount of sympathy for having to share a room with each other if there isn’t space for them to have their own.
The fact that young adults, often total strangers in their first independent living situation, aren’t afforded a space of their own that won’t be interfered with, or the privacy to just exist unobserved after a long day, or the agency to choose when to go to sleep without coordinating with a stranger, or even just somewhere that they can bring a date back to at the end of the evening, just seems like a poor deal as judged against all the major US cultural touchstones.
If we were talking about a country with a pervasive tradition of close multigenerational households, or a nomadic society with a necessarily very different approach to shared spaces, or whatever else I’d be saying “that’d be difficult for me to deal with but I understand that other places do things differently”. Thing is, the US doesn’t do things differently on this one in general - if anything there’s an even stronger focus on bigger, more private, more separated spaces than even the UK - it’s just a very specific carve out for students in particular that seems to give them the short end of the stick.
That's really a post WW2 baby-boomer era thing. Before WW2, only 13% of Americans lived in suburbs, with the majority living in co-living arrangements, rather than single family homes.
W.r.g to college student, it's fundamentally because it's temporary. College is about broadening your horizons - previously, most people only lived in one world: the home of their family. College is where you get thrown into the deep end - you'll have to suddenly figure out the social norms of co-habitations, living and dealing with other people, conflict resolution.
And it's a give and take - in a dorm, you usually don't have to clean anything other than your immediate half of the room, you don't need to cook, you don't need to pay utilities, laundry rooms are provided, you don't have to deal with for-profit landlords.
There's a long history of young people being "forced" to live and work together as part of a maturation ritual.
I've also never seen a college where you couldn't get a single, if you wanted. It's just both expensive, and often framed as a bad thing by other college students - the stereotype is that these people (who are also often international students) are missing out on the social aspects of dorming.
Dorms at my university in Germany were all singles, and the other benefits of co-living you cite were all still pretty applicable. But dorms at universities there are also not mandatory and much cheaper than local non-dorm housing, with the tradeoff that there's a waiting period to get in because they're pretty much always full. You were also allowed to use the communal kitchen to make your meals if you wanted, or to buy your meals at the university cafeterias, where you paid quite low prices per-meal rather than having an expensive pre-paid meal plan. Even before you factor in the differences in how tuition works, it served as a much more sensible budget option for students compared to dorms at the university I attended in the US, which required you to get an expensive meal plan if you lived there and cost enough more than local apartments that the university had to artificially force second-year students to live on campus by forbidding them from doing otherwise (my year at my US uni was the last one to only be required to live on campus for your first year, so it's fresh in my mind).
I also haven't spoken to my college roommate in the US since we lived together freshman year, because just being forced to share the same tiny room for a year doesn't automatically make you friends, and we had no other social connections. My social life in college was still great and my friends lived in other dorms. I think sharing apartments or dorm buildings does make sense at that stage in life, but I don't think being forced to share a bedroom actually improves things socially or culturally on the whole, it just lets the university house more people in the same amount of space.
The thing is, without this type of option, in the US, the alternative currently is homeless on the sidewalk. If we had a social safety net for housing that was government funded in adequate supply, I would be more sympathetic to your argument.
In the US, section 8 housing subsidies are available for some poor people, some of the time. But many have no adequate options.
...or just quit leasing trophy offices in the f*cking city and instead locate where employees actually live...
Like where, the suburbs? That's actually where almost all of the tech companies are. People mistakenly consider SF to be in, or of, "silicon valley", but it's not. The tech companies are in... the valley, in south bay, where it's nothing but single family homes, for better or for worse.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. There are parts of Mountain View that are all apartment buildings, and a lot of new construction of five-over-ones in San Mateo and Sunnyvale.
Housing in the 'burbs isn't cheap either. A bit cheaper, yeah. But I know people in the city paying $1,100 for a bedroom with roommates. $700 for a pod seems like a bad deal by comparison.
I imagine those are usually group-housing/roommate situation where you’re on the hook for all the common maintenance tasks. This Pod living seems more like a hotel situation where the common areas and bathrooms are cleaned and maintained and you’re getting things serviced.
Back when I was living in group-houses it was also kind of a challenge to get into one. There was usually a fairly competitive interview process where you had to gel with the folks you’re talking to on CraigsList, and the roommates are assuming the financial risk of any one of them not being able to cover their share of the rent or communal expenses.
The city wouldn’t have to give up the vibe of having 3-stories within walking distance of transit if they just built more transit and infilled the neighborhoods around it to be more walkable.
That’s basically how development in the Washington DC area worked. There’s long stretches of density all along the metro that have developed to resemble downtown DC and its denser residential corridors. It’s taken some of the housing price pressure off, but it’s always surprising to me how much of the area outside of SF/Oakland is just detached homes and suburban style gated communities. Fresno isn’t an agricultural town anymore! Why is it zoned like one!?
Building more transit is absolutely the way; including a Bay Area-wide underground rail system outside of San Francisco (since BART is really just a medium-range commuter system.) But in the absence of that public transportation, more housing just puts more people onto the roads, and the roads are already basically at capacity anywhere close to rush hour.
The public transportation is underfunded, which means people won't use it, which means they drive, which means the capacity for more housing is limited by the roads which can't be expanded easily, which means housing prices rise, which means the people who would use public transportation get priced out, which means public transportation can't show demand, return to the beginning.
Someone who has the vision and influence to build extensive public transportation would be amazing, but the appetite for infrastructure investment other than car infrastructure is so small. The budget for roads is funded every year without question, but other transportation has to justify every single project every time, and it just makes non-car transportation advocates have to fight for every single dollar in a way that just makes everything harder.
Because it would be detrimental to the home owners who overwhelmingly vote in local elections. Just even moreso, because all the homeowners are by definition millionaires. And the young people are more often than not consider themselves transitory, there for the experience and opportunities but not particularly caring about debating old geezers in a town hall.
This is definitely part of the problem. The other part is that as compared to, for instance, New York City, where there is a top level government running the whole thing, the Bay area has 9 counties with more than 100 municipalities across them, each an independent sinecure trying to protect their own shit. It makes coordination across the region almost impossible. Even basic transportation planning like putting in a bus lane on a major road can be held up for decades because the road goes through 5 different cities each with their own transportation priorities and voters.
Feels like a missed opportunity to compare to similar(ish) setups that have occurred in other cities/countries. I believe many high density areas have done things like this and it’d be interesting to know if it’s ever beneficial or always concerning
This article reminded me a bit of this one about rental bunks in Hong Kong.
The SF ones seem a lot nicer.
When I moved to the area my parents gifted me a few grand to pay for a short term lease. For people without that kind of help something like this is your best option to get set up. It seems clean, safe and cheap. Honestly it's a perfectly reasonable option and I find it strange people would judge someone for taking on temporary cramped living conditions to move into such a lucrative and beautiful city. People love to talk about layoffs and the job market, but it's still the case that if you're smart and capable it won't be long before you're pulling in >$200,000.
That seems a bit optimistic? $200k puts you in the 85th percentile for individuals (source). Plenty of people will achieve that level of income, but it's not the standard.
I think "if you're smart and capable" is a reasonable qualifier that aligns with the metrics. Not that those traits guarantee financial success. But with enough time you'll probably get a high paying job. I know someone in SF that went from homeless with no degree to employed as a department head of a private equity firm after 2 years. He's very smart and very capable.
It's very dependant on your industry though.
Well yes. The implication is "capable (in an industry that pays a lot)".
I don't think anyone here is judging the people using these spaces.... I am judging the people who are charging fucking $700 a month to live in a glorified IKEA display.
Is it better than the streets? Of course. Better than a car? Debatable, but sure. Is it absolutely reprehensible that this is being touted as a "safe, clean, affordable" solution? Yes. Yes it is.
Remember boarding houses? At least with those you got a goddamn door.
I wish we still had boarding houses and many more buildings full of single room occupancy.
Too many people with jobs live on the streets here in California, or share one apartment with many people.
Blame the NIMBYs. Someone adding a lower rung to the housing ladder is giving people more options. But yes the situation is absurd.
Why would anyone go for this instead of just living literally anywhere else?
I suspect that Babypuncher was asking why not live in any other area of the country, not in any other living situation within commuting distance of San Francisco. For example, Oklahoma City has plenty of good paying technical jobs and studio apartments regularly go for between $700 and $800 a month. My mortgage on a 1200sq.ft. house is only $1800 a month. It would be much easier to start a career and get experience somewhere else and then try to move into the SF Bay area than to try to get started from scratch there.
There's plenty of reasons. While it still pales in comparison to NYC, SF has quite robust public transportation. You'll have to own a car and drive in OKC.
SF has fantastic weather, especially if you don't like the heat. It's essentially permanently air conditioned, with temperatures locked in a narrow band from 60F to 70F all year round. It's an extremely unique climate only shared by two other places on the entire earth. OKC has the hot summers and the chilly winters of the midwest.
If you're LGBTQ, SF probably has the most vibrant community in all of the US. The same could not be said of OKC.
If you're either very politically leftward or feel unsafe in political conservative areas, SF is (famously or infamously) one of the most left-leaning areas in the US.
If you're not white, SF is much more racially diverse. SF is one of the few cities in the US where a minority of people are white (35% Asian, 32% White). Personally, this keeps me out of most of the midwest.
If you're into the eclectic art scene that SF has, few other places have it.
Food is going to be much better than OKC, especially food from non-white cultures.
Even in terms of jobs, that depends on what kind of jobs you want, and what kind of lifestyle you want. If you want a foothold into high tech, SF is just a better city than OKC.
Your points on public transit, weather, LGBTQ, left-leaning politics, these I concede. I don't necessarily disagree on racial diversity either, since I don't care enough to look up the statistics right now, but I think you'd be surprised at how diverse OKC is. You'd also be surprised at how much excellent food is available here from all over the world, and there's a growing art scene here as well. As for what kind of jobs you want, we're one of the biggest places for aerospace (mostly high-end military and commercial aviation) in the country. Along with that we have a growing tech sector, and the city is getting more diverse with available jobs all the time.
SF might have a higher concentration of high-tech jobs, but tech jobs are also available here, and living is vastly more affordable within the salaries available here.
Besides, if enough people move out of SF to get jobs elsewhere, high tech will have to follow them, or at least accommodate remote work more.
Eh, that really presupposes the value of having a larger housing unit. In the end, this is a personal choice - do you value the experiences of a walkable, dense city, or do you value having a lot of square feet?
I also wouldn't undervalue the impact of not driving to work on social lives. In my experience, people who don't drive have significantly more social interactions outside of work and home - a driving commute just kills peoples energy.
That's what they said during COVID, but in practice, the only thing that happened was that a lot of tech people moved to NYC, because NYC is a better city than SF. Either way, that change, if it would happen, will likely take longer than your career, so it's a bit of a moot point.
The rub of it is that OP could not understand any reasons someone would want to live in SF. Which I find absurd. I think it's fully valid if any particular person wants to live in a McMansion in the middle of nowhere, or next to some stroad in OKC, but it's also fully valid for someone to rent a studio in SF for $1500 because they value the amenities and opportunities it has more than square footage.
That's why the rent is so high to begin with - because there's a ton of demand.
Why not both? OKC has a walkable district downtown, we call it Bricktown. That also happens to be where a lot of the best restaurants are. Apartments in that area are a teeny bit pricier, but you could still get a studio for under 1k a month in that area. Admittedly you'd still probably need to drive to work or take a Lyft, but most commutes from Bricktown to anywhere in OKC are less than 20 minutes. There's just not that much traffic here, and compared to LA or SF there's not that far to go.
No, I think the rub of it is that if you're in the financial position where renting less than a closet at $700 a month makes sense, you could live far more comfortably in any large city in the part of the United States that a lot of folks traditionally dismiss as "flyover country".
This is frankly insulting. I live near downtown OKC, and my commute to the heart of commerce in aerospace is less than 10 minutes from my driveway to my desk. My house is in a proper neighborhood in one of the densest areas of the city, and I am most definitely not "in the middle of nowhere or next to some stroad."
Yeah, good luck with that. A quick search shows that there are no listings in SF for less than $1650 base price, not including extras, tax, etc.
My point is that the demand is misplaced. Your presumption that high-tech jobs aren't available outside of NYC or SF is incorrect. OKC offers salaries in high-tech jobs that far outstrips the cost of living, unlike the Bay Area, where the salary you're likely to get just does not go as far. The costs aren't limited to housing, either. Groceries, fuel, energy, everything in that area costs more. I know, I've been there. I've had family who used to work at Apple headquarters. Where do they live now? Arkansas, because San Jose is just not worth the cost at any plausibly available salary. Work in Arkansas offers salaries vastly larger than the cost of living compared to the Bay Area.
If you think there aren't opportunities here, or that OKC is "the middle of nowhere" then maybe you should visit and see for yourself. There's an entire country here in the middle, even if we aren't within a days drive of the east or west coast.
One use case would be for people who work in SF but have spouses and children in a house out where it is cheaper. They would only sleep there four nights per week.
The whole idea made me angry about squeezing even more out of renters, but this use case actually makes a lot of sense to me.
Not much different from Japanese pod hotels. A unique offering for specific circumstances.
If I didn’t have a family, and I were young again, this would be fine for me. As it stands, I actually only personally use maybe 100 square feet of my apartment. I’ve stayed in capsule hotels in Japan which were even smaller and I found it enjoyable.
The number of people I’ve met willing to live like roaches in California than anywhere else has always been concerning to me.
These aren’t people with careers or family there but rather those who uproot their lives because California will be better.
Personally I feel many deluded themselves after the reality of miserable living conditions and traffic set in, but I also could never live there long term. The “everything is 40 minutes away” life drives me nuts
That seems like an LA phenomena? We’re talking about SF. In 40 minutes you could probably walk halfway through the city.
People seem to forget that California, by itself, is almost as big as all of Spain. It has an only slightly lower population and an economy about 3x bigger.
Most people there aren’t in “miserable” living conditions, it’s actually quite glamorous for the median resident relative to most of the rest of the country. There’s people who fall through the cracks, but that’s an endemic problem across America.
While I would again point out my issues are probably more of taste (how much you hate a miserable traffic or having 5 roomates to be near the beach or good food is up to you), but I also think that's not really backed by the data. Poverty in CA is slightly above average, heavily so in places like LA, and arguably even worse when you start looking at rent to income ratios and the fact that places like SF are technically fine in census data, but arguably much work when you realize how badly some people are commuting.
Yes the state is more than those cities, but at the same time LA is roughly 25% of the population while the next highest are San Diego/OC at 8%. Throw in San Bernardino and Riverside and you've got 50% of the state right there.
Poverty in LA is something like 13-15%+ last I checked (county/city distinctions and all) vs the US average of 11%. San Bernardino is another that often gets discussed as problematic, and things like SF especially look "fine" until you consider that most people who work there commute often 1hr + because they can't come anywhere near affording the cost of living
I believe it also routinely ranks in the top 10, maybe top 5 for homelessness.
It's got a lot going for it, but the median resident is far from glamorous.
If you’re below the poverty line then you’re not a median resident by definition is my point. And even being at the poverty line in SF is going to be generally better than being poor in Denver because there’s more resources and support systems available there.
It doesn't seem like median income and the poverty rate (which is about people at the bottom) have much to do with each other? They're about different people.
According to this chart, California median household income reached $100,000 per year in 2024. And that means half the households in the state make more than that.
Housing prices are high in part because there are a lot of people out there who can pay that much, and they're competing for housing.
Just because people are not in (often argued as inaccurately defined) poverty does not mean they live “glamorous” lives. Median income in relation to things like state income tax, cost of living, and rent are good indicators of how difficult it can be to live somewhere.
Chart is gross not adjusted. Average rent is about 2k a month. When you add the cost of living, the high income tax, mandatory driving with high gas and a plenty of other small factors it gets not great fast. Minimum wage is at about 40k and it’s miserable for the people being told that 60-80k is “plenty” when they’re still getting destroyed by rent. There’s 0 doubt they’ve also got some of the best public education but that’s hard to appreciate for the single 20-30 something’s.
We could do a whole other topic on how this is vastly simplifying the situation and the problems with housing becoming an investment asset class, but I’ll just say anecdotally I’ve known several people who live 4+ people in a one or two bedroom place to make rent because that’s the only way to make it work.
If you want another number look at homeless rates. Cali is just outside of the top 5 for a reason.
It’s a state not a utopia. There’s a lot good but I just don’t think any of this data supports a “glamorous” lifestyle for the average even compared to how rough it can be elsewhere.
Ehhhh, their housing situation is the worst in the US by many metrics. Most Californians live in the crazy expensive cities and have to deal with the worst parts of the state.
And I think most of the people there prefer that to living in Boulder, Colorado. We infer this because they haven’t moved to Memphis despite the huge COL differences if they did so.
I was thinking about LA in that moment yes but I lived outside of SF and everything was 40 min away because you couldn't afford to live in SF.
I tried living outside California during covid and came back. Not everywhere will be like that, I’ve lived places I love more than California, but they are outside the country. My friends and family are here so that’s major, but outside of New York where I’ve also lived for a little while, I haven’t found places that I enjoy as much as sf or la. I do have a lifestyle that doesn’t require driving to work so that is a huge break.
I'd actually love a cheaper option like this in the bigger cities near me. I have a home in a city where my partner is setup to establish their career, whereas I've been exploring ways to work in nearby cities to open more career options.
A more affordable and more temporary option like this would suit my use case really well!
I actually have a friend who rents these spaces out to people and one of the lesser known facts about these spaces is that for an extra $30 down, you get to choose the gun you put in your mouth before bed. Believe it or not, that's a huge selling point. Also, a lot of the tenants are shy exhibitionists who are seeking the thrill of masturbating in a public space without the shame, humiliation, or potential legal consequences of doing it at a Vons or something.