Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AsbestosIn0bstetrics t1_j6n78pn wrote

And if you REALLY want to maximize density, you move toward building barracks-style bunkhouses with rows of bunk beds in one large room, with shower facilities in a separate building. This would be a far more affordable solution for renters than 1BR or even studio apartments, as well.


throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j6n890j wrote

Unironically yes. If people want to pay $65 a month for a bunk in a hostel then that is ok for them to do so. This wouldn’t prevent other types of housing from being built. Luckily I am not at a place in my life where I need what you described, but I could absolutely use a dormitory-style room myself.


AsbestosIn0bstetrics t1_j6n8m2m wrote

There would certainly be a market for such barracks-style housing. But it would be interesting to see exactly where all the people demanding maximum density live. I'm guessing that some of them don't exactly practice what they preach.


greetedworm t1_j6nen70 wrote

I think chemotherapy should be free but I don't have cancer. I don't have to live in dorm housing to be an advocate for density.


AsbestosIn0bstetrics t1_j6njg0f wrote

Then you fit the profile. You believe that others should be forced to make sacrifices in order to achieve greater density, but at the same time you exempt yourself from such restrictions.


Docile_Doggo t1_j6nm7ek wrote

Creating a greater variety of options up and down the price and density scales is a lot different from “forcing” people into a specific style of living. In fact, it’s the exact opposite


Gumburcules t1_j6o0wlh wrote

> You believe that others should be forced to make sacrifices in order to achieve greater density

Who exactly is being forced to make sacrifices?

Did I miss the headline where Bowser is sending jackbooted thugs to grab you out of your home and throw you into a studio apartment and shooting those who don't comply?