Hacker News Reader

Comment by vanviegen | Hacker News Reader

> A lot of people would be willing to..

Sure, for a couple of years, when you're young and just using your house to sleep. Problem is that people who are not willing would also end up in these semi-houses.

> What if windowless apartments had a built-in 12" video wall

That would look really cool, but would do little for receiving the health and mood benefits of natural daylight. Or for the sense of being connected with whatever is out there.

View on HN

> Sure, for a couple of years, when you're young and just using your house to sleep. Problem is that people who are not willing would also end up in these semi-houses.

For sure. These dwellings are not meant for every stage of life, but they might be perfectly suited to people living by themselves (young or old).

> That would look really cool, but would do little for receiving the health and mood benefits of natural daylight. Or for the sense of being connected with whatever is out there.

Add in some more light sources around the display that stimulates sunlight (something like CoeLux) and you might be able to get at least the mood benefits and some of the health ones too.

Artificial sunlight therapy is frequently used in countries that gets very dark during the winter, where there isn't many sunlight hours. I remember some friends many years ago went to those kind of therapies in the winter times and felt benefits from it. Not sure exactly what light sources they used, but if you can manage to buy those, maybe it'll be at least a bit better?

This literally sounds like something out of a cyberpunk dystopia novel

You don't want to live in 3 m2 room that just have a bed, TV with 24/7 news/ads and a giant display simulating the outside?

Come on, you wanna live cheaply in the middle of the city, you're gonna have to sacrifice something!

Joking aside, I agree, sounds dystopian. I'm just having fun with the idea I guess.

I'm so naïve, I hadn't even considered ads. These apartments could have multiple revenue streams. Imagine if the ads were something really innocuous, like slow TV to promote travel.

An interior space filled with artificial light and real plants could definitely be superior to an apartment with a window overlooking a noisy and dirty highway (for example).

Note: Real plants don't freshen the air in the dark, and need darkness cycles to rest.

Also, if you don't have a green thumb, good luck taking care of them.

Plants are beneficial to well being even if they aren't actively cleaning the air. Darkness cycles would happen for the plants when they do for the resident, while sleeping. There are lots of low maintenance plants that can grow exclusively on indoor light, and even without soil (e.g. Pothos). It's not for everyone, but would be a good option for many.

This sounds like a depressing solution.

You're talking about full spectrum lighting and seasonal affective disorder (SAD).

I'm open to the idea that a video wall--which could even have a real outside view feed--isn't necessarily that dystopian. Having stayed in hundreds of urban hotels, I'd actually say the view is suboptimal more often than not.

On the other hand, shared bathrooms/kitchens/etc. are going to be a non-starter for most people. Especially, as you say, once you get beyond the live for a few more years like you're still in college demographic.

I'd posit that a fake view of nature is superior to the real view of many windows (that look out on alley's full of dumpsters, etc.). One study showed that looking at pictures of nature could be beneficial: https://www.sciencealert.com/just-looking-at-photos-of-natur...

Then don't rent/buy it? Why should this be an illegal choice for an adult to make?

Because there are health and safety issues that some adults are happy to overlook whilst society, eventually, picks up the bill.

Fire safety I can see; health benefits sound like a rather dubious claim.

Poor housing has detrimental physical and mental health benefits, I'm not sure many people would find this such a dubious statement?

Countless situations, like living in a rainy climate, have detrimental physical and mental effects, but we still allow it.

I think adults should be able to evaluate if they can put up with missing the health benefits of a window for improved location or reduced cost. Life is about tradeoffs.

Maybe, but the reason there are rules and regulations relating to many everyday activities is that when people make decisions about their own lives those decisions can result in negative impacts to society as a whole.

OK, I think not having fire protection in my building can save me a lot of rent. And yes, I have picked an extreme example to validate my point just have you have done.

I'm literally responding to the example in the thread. And I agree with you on fire safety (of course, that could also be taken too far).

Not everybody gets to actually choose though..

What about "the bill" associated with not having affordable housing, and people being forced to either pay for overpriced units, or having to live 1 hour from work?

From the article, the conversions in Manhattan are producing apartments that rent from $3,500 to $7,000 per month because the conversions are too expensive for lower-end housing. There's presumably some trickle down supply effect but these conversions are not producing affordable housing directly.

>From the article, the conversions in Manhattan are producing apartments that rent from $3,500 to $7,000 per month because the conversions are too expensive for lower-end housing

But presumably some of that pricing is because of all the work needed to make those units comply with code? In the nytimes article they mentioned that for one of the conversions, they had a make a courtyard (literally cutting a hole into the building). I can't imagine that would be cheap. On the other hand if building codes allowed for shared bathrooms/kitchens and windowless bedrooms, all you'd have to do for a "conversion" is rip everything out and put in some drywalls.

For that matter, why not just move in bunk beds and call it a day. Even quicker and cheaper.

Absolutely, why not, if people prefer cheap bunk beds?

Because it's a race to the bottom. Eventually, if allowed, these may become the only affordable houses for many people. Landlords can split up their (already small) apartments, install a video wall in the back, and call it two apartments, asking only a little under twice the rent. Given the housing shortage (and the lack of remote working options for lower paying jobs), people would have little choice but to accept it.

That would only happen if renters preferred lower cost / better location to windows. So why should you or the government be able to tell them that they can't make that choice?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com