Hacker News Reader

Comment by thedarkginger | Hacker News Reader

Maybe I am reading into this but I feel like the author makes this sound nefarious and really uncommon.

When I was moving to the South Bay and had only two weeks to figure out my plan, can't tell you how many somewhat affordable room rentals in non-luxury apartments had crazier setups.

Some of my favorites: 1. Spacious open room with bed (it was someone's garage with a sheet down and a mattress on top of the concrete)

2. Pretty common: nice place but you were not allowed to use the kitchen

3. Converted Living Room (no joke, the photo was a twin bed in a living room with Office Depot boxes to create a divider)

So yeah, I get why someone would share a room in exchange for having some amenities.

View on HN

My favorite setup is renting out a balcony. Yup. It was roofed so you didn't get rained on, but still...

The Craigslist way to brand that would be: "Courtesy ambient rain noise for improved sleep environment."

Should've asked for money back for false advertising; no ambient rain noise during drought.

Number 2 always stuck out to me on rental listings... Why would I want to live somewhere where I couldn't use a vital function of a home/shelter?

Many many companies these days offer breakfast, lunch and dinner, and you can eat out if not.

It's very perverse that such awesome perks result in viable rentals like this.

The words "light cooking" make me angry.

I think that means, "No actual stove." A hotplate, a small fridge, and a microwave.

I know what it means. If I'm paying for part of a house with a proper kitchen I will be cooking like a human at least two nights a week; no takeout and soylent here.

It makes me angry that I have to pay for a kitchen by law (if I rent or buy a whole 'dwelling'), despite never cooking.

Different strokes.

I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not :/

Would you be happy if you had to pay for a toolshed by law?

Yes, you have to keep your grass short, but why do you need to pay for a toolshed to store your lawn mower when you might just want to hire someone instead and not waste time?

You don't need a kitchen any more than you need a toolshed, and it sucks to be forced to pay for something you don't use, especially when every inch costs you.

What a silly comparison. A toolshed and a kitchen are not equivalent. Replace kitchen with bathroom and you'll see the silliness.

Replace kitchen with what?

A bathroom.

Imagine having a kitchen and a pay toilet.

Some people have unique situations and do not need the use of a kitchen at all. My diet consists entirely of bottled Soylent and protein bars. I never need to cook or utilize any other functions provided by a kitchen.

I reckon the number of folks who claim never to have any need of a kitchen is probably a statistical rounding error, well maybe only slightly more if SF.

But good luck trying to flog your flat or house to the next potential owner when you decided to rip out the worktops, hob etc to re-purpose the kitchen for some other non-food activity.

I thought I'd heard it all regarding peculiar habitation behaviours until this sub-thread.

If it's going to be so hard to flog anyways then why does government feel the need to mandate kitchens? Sounds like the free market should take care of it.

I like to cook, and so does my SO. Even if that weren't the case, we have friends over regularly.

I don't think I'd be ok with inviting over guests and shoving bottles of soylent in front of them as a "meal".

Is this how libertarians actually think?

It's generally a violation of housing / rental code.

That never occurred to me until just now. It seemed like at least half the listings I reviewed when looking for a room in SF specified no kitchen access. (this was early 2015)

I didn't particularly care as it was a temporary situation for me and I was used to road life in hotels without a kitchen, but it quickly became a red flag as it always seemed to accompany some other sketchy situation.

Yeah, this is incredibly common, even in Mountain View. Not just true in luxury rentals with low occupancy, but also in house shares.

However, I still don't quite understand restricted kitchen access and shared living rooms.

Real estate is completely out of control in the Bay Area and property owners are pulling every dirty trick to make extra profits.

You know no one is forcing people to actually take these offers, apart from government regulations, right? When there's demand, there is going to be supply, and there's nothing bad about that.

It incentivizes development of luxury condos because they don't remain vacant, but most renters' needs would be better addressed by building affordable housing

Reply on news.ycombinator.com