Depending on a person's college experience though, more flexibility in moving to "the big city" might provide sufficient transition for many college grads and other on tight budgets. Especially when the alternative in a very expensive city is a cramped tiny space with multiple roommates.
Dorms are pretty unique. A bunch of people same age, going through same experience, in a shared living space. I'd be interested in how this is replicated in a medium-sized city.
That's a great analogy. And what's interesting is that looking back, living in a college dorm was one of the happiest periods of my life. I'm sure many others would express the same sentiment.
I think the lesson is that having a sense of community and opportunities for regular socialization far outweigh the impact of things like square footage or granite countertops. In terms of subjective wellbeing, most of us would probably do better to live closer to friends and family, even if it means a step-down to a shittier house.
There are two forces at play here. The developers argue that dorm style living (rebranded micro-housing) is the result of a new, anti-consumption mindset:
“People have different perspectives than our parents might have had. They were geared to acquire as much stuff as you can. They buy a big house and fill it up with as much stuff as they can. It’s a paradigm shift. Our generation is not being geared to the acquisitional mindset. It’s more normal for us being able to shift gears.”
On the other hand, most residents seems to be there for economical reasons: the average tenant only stays 12-14 months, and it seems dubious that anyone (other than Steve Sauer) would enjoy living in a micro-housing unit for a long time:
“I certainly don’t want to live this way forever,” she says, “but at this point in my life, it makes it easier. I need to stay close to work, I need free (street) parking, I need something affordable and just the convenience of being in the city. A space like this allows me to be in the city without breaking the bank.”
Affordable housing is a big problem in a highly-regulated market with a lot of money at stake. If these jail-density units continue to proliferate in and around large cities, I fear that we are moving in the wrong direction. They are good indicators of the number of people who are willing to live in a 200 sq. ft dorm room because a) all they do is work and sleep and b) they can't afford the rent anywhere else. It's not a population of people we want to see growing in the US.
Is that really true in college towns? My experience (at an urban university campus that required a year in the dorms) was that the dorms and meal plans were staggeringly expensive, but the cheaper off-campus housing tended to be in older homes that had seen some very hard use as students came and went. So maybe the dorm price would be comparable with a brand-new high-rise apartment, but students didn't really need that.
Leaving aside whether I'd want that as a young professional with a good job, I'd argue that there is a difference between a college dorm or a shared house situation and sharing facilities with a bunch of completely random people over which you have zero control.
ADDED: And it's almost certainly a fantasy to think that shared amenities and residents would be young professional friendly rather than being more in line with those who rent SROs today. (Although as the article notes, these conversions are expensive--so they almost have to be luxury apartments--rather than SROs with shared facilities.)
I think the point is that we should preserve the tradition of young people living in large houses together even if fewer people end up going to college. Tax payers don't necessarily have to pay for it.
BTW, if you spent time living in a city near other young people, you probably didn't miss out on much by not living in a dorm. Some people really thrive in that environment, but personally I prefer the apartment-style living in an area with a lot of young people (college campus or city with young people) that I transitioned to after freshman year.
I wanted to live in a dorm after college mainly for the social aspects, but now that I am in my thirties it would be miserable. I care more about peace and quiet, being settled, and privacy than about mobility or socializing. That said I think there's definitely a market for this, although there are apartment buildings in certain cities that are mostly filled with young college grads and I don't see how that's different. If competing on cost, then there's definitely a market for this.
I would worry about the safety and quality of such living arrangements, though. Buildings like this were built many years ago called single-room occupancy (SRO) residences. They eventually became havens for vagrants and other hard-luck elements. As a result, SRO residences were outlawed in many cities.
But given the choice between smaller and cheaper houses and larger and more expensive ones, they almost always choose the larger, more expensive ones.
The university in town is over a hundred years old, and many of the dorms are that old too. Most have no air conditioning, and have insufficient power for a resident to add a window air conditioner without special approval.
And the parents and students describe them as, "practically unlivable", "bad for the students' education, and all of that. There are numerous schemes around to get that special permission. And many scheme to move out ASAP. These are folks borrowing tens-of-thousands of dollars to go to school, and yet still go even deeper into debt for better housing, when the cheap option is right in front of them.
100 years ago no one would have thought twice about the exact same conditions. I doubt anyone would have thought twice about it even 50 years ago.
People just expect a certain level of amenities, and are willing to pay to get them.
Also, given that colleges shut down and people had to leave dorm rooms, it very surprising that college-aged people needed a low-cost alternative housing situation? Especially one that could quickly be found?
I don't think you and Kennedy necessarily conflict. It's very possible for 60% of college students to want to get out of dorms and into a real (large) apartment, while the other 40% still making the post-college demographics unusually high in its preference for micro apartments.
> Dorms used to be the defacto, cheapest living arrangement.
Has that changed? The article suggests $500 per month for a basic room. There is no way I could find anywhere to live for that much around here, not even in a crack shack, and I live in a small town where housing tends to be cheap compared to the cities where colleges are found. In which cities is $500 per month for rent above market?
Sure, you can opt to spend upwards of $2,000 per month (per the article) if you want to live in what is effectively a mansion, which may be something new, but you're going to spend more than that to live in a mansion off campus too, surely?
It is unfortunate that no one has found a way to replicate or imitate the lifestyle of living on a college campus. I very much miss dormitory style living and the social aspect of it. While I'm happy to have my own living space that is much larger than any dorm room, I miss all the novelty and variety that the dorms brought to my life.
Yeah its quite something just how far the concept of dormitory living has shifted. I would expect student housing to be some of the most austere options out there on the market.
A large desk, a small bed, and the real luxuries if they can be got: Lots of natural light and freedom from noise.
The studio pictured seems to do OK on the lux, but the area granted to television and whatever's below it seems wacky. Then again, if people want it and will pay for it...
It's a perfectly reasonable decision to live in a closet if that's all you can afford in the city you want to live in.
When I travel, I often stay in dorms, not because I can't afford a room, but because it's more fun and I feel better about being part of a community. Many dorms might be undesirable holes in your mind, but they also might be a lot more fun.
Some people place little value on the room they sleep in and a lot of value on having access to an amazing city like New York. In fact, I'd say that's often a better life choice than isolating yourself in the suburbs.
All the way back in ‘03, in two college towns I’m aware of, it was significantly cheaper to get a 12-month lease on a 1-bedroom or studio apartment within a 5-minute walk from campus than to live in the dorms, even without a roomate (which you’d have in the dorm). And you’d have your own bathroom and kitchen, and more total space.
Both universities required freshmen to live in the dorms, unless they were living with family.
At many colleges, it is way cheaper to stay in an big apartment than in a cramped dorm. At Berkeley, I saved thousands and thousands of dollars by living off campus in a pretty big apartment with a "flatmate" but not a "roommate".
Depending on a person's college experience though, more flexibility in moving to "the big city" might provide sufficient transition for many college grads and other on tight budgets. Especially when the alternative in a very expensive city is a cramped tiny space with multiple roommates.
reply