|
|
|
|
|
|
by fromthestart
2476 days ago
|
|
|
>Decent joinery and inbuilt storage spares residents having to buy flat pack furniture, while the living spaces, which all flow into an outdoor area, are designed to encourage communal dining and social interaction All of these spaces seem to have in common that they're absolutely hostile to introverts who need at least some privacy and quiet. They also follow a consistent pattern of cramming as many people into a tiny space as possible to milk properties while billing themselves as driving some kind of positive housing revolution. This is just open concept for housing and the CEO who talks about doing this out of some implied generosity is a comical stereotype of the sociopathic but charismatic SV executive. If you want to build a community, you need to foster a common, meaningful goal for people to come together over, and it needs to be organic. It also helps if the people have a common culture/heritage. You can't commercialize community as a product to transient weekly renters from random places for any meaningful amount of time, it just comes off as forced and artificial, like corporate propaganda. |
|
|
That said, I mean: >All of these spaces seem to have in common that they're absolutely hostile to introverts who need at least some privacy and quiet.
That's kind of a strange complaint, because why would such a person seek out a co-living arrangement? Wouldn't renting a studio or efficiency apartment be more consistent with his/her personality and desires as far as living arrangement? (And cheaper than a trendy co-living place to boot?)