Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jochim | Hacker News Reader

> It sounds to me like Munger is correct, and on average people would rather have a small private room with a fake window and lower rent and than a shared room with a real window and higher rent. I’m not sure why this particular structure has provoked so much more outrage than the previous ones.

There's something that feels off about this statement. It reads much like the articles that talk about how young millennials are "choosing" to live in pod houses/tiny homes when in reality they can't afford anything better. They are forced to live in these conditions which are then normalised by authors framing it as a free choice.

View on HN

This isn’t the only residence on UM campus! The rest are “normal”. And what you said doesn’t align with the good reviews the pace gets, even compared to “normal” housing.

And to be honest, we’re always going to have to “force” people into some sort of living condition. There are more people than ever going to higher education, so people will have to accept either smaller living spaces, denser construction, higher costs, or longer commutes to school - space is (unfortunately) a rival good, and giving everybody a large dorm is likely not viable.

> articles that talk about how young millennials are "choosing" to live in pod houses/tiny homes when in reality they can't afford anything better. They are forced to live in these conditions

"conditions"? 1 in 20 UC students is homeless [1] and they want to a build a 5,000 single occupancy rooms for 1.5 Billion. But somehow everyone and their mother finds a reason to veto new development.

1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-02/what-crit...

I don't know US situation but this still seems expensive: 1.5Billion / 5000 == 300k USD per person. I understand the whole building provide also different kind of space but it still feels too expensive to build.

I don't why they cannot build simply longer buildings with each room having a window instead of big square one with most rooms not having window at all? Both such buildings would occupy the same amount of squares per meter.

A decade ago I was exchange student in Umea, Sweden and dorms were really good. In every corridor there where 8 rooms. Everyone had their own room + own small bathroom. Room was like 3x size of those in the article. Corridor had big shared kitchen and living room. Rent per month was like 450 euro. Campus was really big - it was basically a student city so there was a space for everyone. Those buildings were just simply longer. Building student campuses/universities outside of big cities also helped.

> I don't know US situation but this still seems expensive

It is expensive.

> I don't why they cannot build simply longer buildings

It's not simple. They have to deal with zoning laws, land owned/available to the university, costs (which you already think are too high) and maximizing occupancy etc, etc.

> Everyone had their own room + own small bathroom. Room was like 3x size

Sounds nice in Sweden... meanwhile in the UC system 1 in 20 students are homeless.

> 1.5Billion / 5000 == 300k USD per person

No, it's effectively 300k per room, not per person. This structure will be up for more than 1 semester and certainly up for more than than length of one person living in it.

That being said, I have no frame of reference for the cost of similar structures. It definitely sounds fairly expensive considering the size of the room + common area.

As I was reading the article, I started thinking this guy was right. At university, I would often have to get to a lab or whatever early in the morning and then get home late at night. I would have this sort of routine for weeks or months at a time. I may as well have had no windows.

I think as long as you get out during the day, and as a student, that’s probably likely, this sort of arrangement seems to make sense. But still offends me.

It's offensive because it's someone dictating how student's should live. It besmirches any goodwill from the original act of philanthropy.

I’m sorry what? No matter what type of dorm that is built it’s dictating how students should live?!?

It’s a public university, and in my opinion the public should decide what to build… not unelected, unaccountable twits with a lot of money.

> should decide

Everyone with their own money. The university with its own, the donors with their own.

Munger's contribution would be 13% of the projected cost. And a public university's money belongs to the public.

Of course. Your note does not seem consistent with the parent points. Different parties will propose conditional contribution. Those who do not agree with the project will retract the participation. The public does not decide on Munger's money, Munger will not decide over the public money.

The parent post makes no sense: Charlie Munger does not decide "what to build", he decides whether to participate.

> Charlie Munger does not decide "what to build", he decides whether to participate.

Sure, this is a convenient way to look at this particular situation. Yet I google "strings attached donation university" and see many instances of this crap: Koch brothers, John Allison, etc. It's serious enough that Harvard recently issued a "Gift Policy Guide" discourage strings-attached giving. Ironically, only the elite private universities have enough cachet to make such a policy stick.

The schools are entirely free to just reject the donation.

Can they? I have seen politicians cut budgets whenever they smelled blood in the water, even when the idea was completely harebrained^1 . Just the offer existing may interfere with a proper building funded through public means.

^1 For some time German universities had to require higher fees from students, officially to provide an improved learning experience. Seeing that universities now had an alternative income source some states cut public funding, they didn't care about the specifics, the courts did, some universities ended up not heating their buildings during winter because they couldn't legally touch the money.

And what alternative would you propose? Whatever I finance, I will have to approve. This is a pretty solid principle.

What other «way[s] to look at this» are there? Point of view or practical proposal, I do not get what are the other options.

Raising taxes, primarily. Or at least force donations to public institutions to be no-strings-attached. Many years ago when I attended UCSB and this project was in its infancy, someone told me that UCLA has a long-term development plan where large donors can choose from a menu of pre-planned projects. Not sure how true that it, but much better idea.

But my more extreme view is that individuals should not be able to amass so many resources to begin with. It's absurd.

What! Just for 13% of the contribution he is getting his name on the building and able to detect architecture!

You meant to say "dictate" architecture, right? Well, it serves the university right for not building a dorm that was 13% smaller or cheaper. They obviously had that choice and decided to go with the donation option instead.

If it's the choice between this with no windows or one that's much further away or costs more, the choice isn't to do with the windows, but putting up with the lack of them.

Aren't the opponents equally dictating how student's should live?

Furthermore you are dismissing the fact that there still is a market, with choices.

I presume the "opponents" are the students themselves. They are the voice that matters I would imagine.

There's more options for the students to live than this singular building.

There's nothing hindering students from renting an apartment, they don't have to use the 200$ million building.

There are actually many UCSB students living in hotels due to a severe housing shortage.

Availability, cost. We live in a housing shortage and an era of housing exploitation.

I don't live in the US and don't know the local market, but a quick google says you need at least $2000 a month to get a basic apartment in Santa Barbara: https://www.apartments.com/santa-barbara-ca/. Who has that kind of money, especially combined with a full time education?

Your elitism is showing.

Well, in theory increased supply will lower the rents in the surrounding area.

No one will be forced to live there, but that location is a much better alternative than homeless or not.

So instead of attempting to deliver cheaper dense housing for 5000 students close to campus, we should make a windowed one that houses 3000 and tell the other 2000 to go to Sacramento and start lobbying for new state laws? Or do we instead try to get solutions at multiple scopes and not let perfect be the enemy of good.

> There's nothing hindering students from renting an apartment

The ridiculous expense because of the acute housing shortage in SB. Which building the largest dorm in the country would help alleviate.

> they don't have to use the 200$ million building

1.5$ Billion Building

> dictating how

It's actually the opposite... It creates an option with different tradeoffs.

In essence, you could describe your stance as forcing all residents to pay a tax for a benefit that you deem is for their own good. In this case it’s windows, but would you support this stance for other reasons? What if it was that all rooms come with a large crucifix on the wall (wasting wall and floor space)?

Not at all. I'm calling philanthropy with strings attached barely philanthropy.

I remember the stress of worrying about rent pretty clearly, especially given my room was basically a sleeping and hygiene chamber that I hardly spent time in, but still had to have for those two critical functions.

> They are forced to live in these conditions

I agree that the choice between crippling rent rates and having no access to windows is not a good one, but it seems a function of where we are economically. Base rents everywhere I've ever lived are much higher compared to minimum wage than they've been for past generations.

> I agree that the choice between crippling rent rates and having no access to windows is not a good one, but it seems a function of where we are economically. Base rents everywhere I've ever lived are much higher compared to minimum wage than they've been for past generations.

They are absurdly high and I think the people who are put in that position are doing what they feel is in their best interest. What worries and frustrates me is that many publications/people seem to be seeking to normalise the situation we're in rather than thinking about how we could provide a better standard of living to people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com