Comment by lobster_johnson | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lobster_johnson | Hacker News Reader

lobster_johnson

If Copenhagen is anything like other Scandinavian countries (I'm Norwegian), then it goes like this:

- If the ad doesn't list dates and times when the apartment will be shown, you phone up the landlord and make an appointment.

- You go and see the apartment. Obviously you will be in competition with other applicants.

- Talk to the landlord and make a good impression -- do whatever is needed to make the owner pick you.

- If you are interested in renting, you write down your contact details in the applicant book.

- The landlord will go home and consider the applicants and phone up the lucky winner.

- The landlord may require a credit assessment to determine your financial situation. Some landlords require references from earlier tenancies.

- You meet the landlord to sign a formal lease (Scandinavian countries are pretty strict about landlord/tenant rights) and get the keys.

When I was renting in NYC, things were different. None of the places I rented (which I found on Craigslist) would have open house dates; instead, you would make a personal appointment with the landlord. Also, landlords seemed to prefer email.

Is the rental housing market so competitive in all/most of the bigger Scandanavian cities?

The housing market is quite competitive in Norway's bigger cities. Oslo in particular is crazy and expensive; as a student you basically can't afford your own flat, and almost everyone ends up sharing with several other people. I don't know what the situation is like in Sweden and Denmark at the moment.

Not welcoming at all: http://universitypost.dk/article/new-internationals-angered-...

As I am not a student, my main problem is not so much the cost as (1) the scarcity and the inane "competition" it promotes and (2) the sad state of the apartments condition, at least compared to modern housing in other first-world countries.

Strange that you find the state of Danish apartments to be sur-par. My experience has been the opposite. I am interested to hear what your criteria are.

Fire regulations, plumbing regulations and so on are very strict, so internally you shouldn't really find any qualitative difference between Scandinavia and "other first-world countries".

In Scandinavia we have a strong affection for historic buildings, an affection that extends to interiors. We like fireplaces, creaky hardwood floors, crown mouldings, exposed brick walls, that sort of thing.

So buildings might feel distinctly unmodern, even though they aren't really. Some facilities may be lacking. Elevators are only common in somewhat newer (post-1980) buildings, for example. Common laundry rooms are usually pretty awful. And I have never come across a Scandinavian apartment building that has a porter.

But these are not important things. So again, based on what criteria are you judging Copenhagen?

For starters, having a real bathroom with a bath tub, not these tiny solitary confinement cells.

This a typical mid/low end first-world bathroom: http://www.apollo-plus.co.uk/Design/Leigh.jpg

This isn't: http://images.travelpod.com/users/skylarking/1.1230340500.ds...

Edit: According to http://www.airbnb.com/rooms/111335, this "cute" style has its own name and history:

the type of bathroom typically referred to as a "Copenhagen bathroom". It basically means, that in the "old days", none of the working-class-apartments had showers. Eventually, this changed, but many of the apartments were so small, that it was almost impossible to fit in a big, modern bathroom. However, you get used to it very quickly and it is quite charming in its own way :)

Um, no, I'd rather not have to get used to it.

So of all the things that might classify a first-world country, you picked a bathtub? Not sanitation, not drinkable water, not reliable electricity... but a bathtub!

Look, some apartments have small bathrooms. For historical reasons, some old apartment buildings even have external bathrooms (or toilets) that are in the hallway/stairway. This is not true about all Copenhagen buildings. But it's true about some, just as it's true that a lot of buildings in London are afflicted with damp, bad plumbing, shoddy wiring and ugly wallpapers.

But I don't think it's fair to dismiss an entire city as being somehow not "civilization" based on the layouts of a minority of its bath facilities.

In fact, it sounds to me like you might just be a bit spoiled. Have you visited any non-first-world countries? Try Ukraine. You will feel like a billionaire.

If I was moving to Ukraine, Cambodia or Somalia, for one thing I would have done my homework (and vaccines) beforehand, and for second and I wouldn't have first-world expectations. But here we're talking about friggin' Denmark, the happiest (allegedly) country in the world and among the top in quality of life, so forgive me for taking sanitation, drinkable water and, yes, bathtubs for granted. New Jersey, Athens or Madrid are not exactly famous for their prosperity and yet finding half-decent accommodation there within a week and without a "network" (yet another ugly danish surprise that was brought to my attention) was a breeze in comparison.

I'm glad that not all Copenhagen buildings are moldy smelling dumps. I will be even more glad if I was unlucky to see one of the few exceptions and the majority are actually decent but I'm not holding my breath (no pun intended).

I think that you are pissed because you have unreasonable and weird expectations about trivial things.

Bathtubs? Danes are (allegedly) the happiest country in the world because they have free health care, excellent education, wealth, political freedom, stability, etc. etc. Not because of the size of their baths.

I know how the effect of culture shock can be; everything seems weird and even small trivial things are horribly, almost infuriatingly alienating. But culture shock is a psychological, irrational phenomenon. This is about you, not about the country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com