Hacker News Reader

Comment by nox101 | Hacker News Reader

In LA there are tons of "co-living" spaces where they're basically renting out bedrooms for $2500-$4000 a month! It's the similar to living with roommates except each roommate has their own lease and you have no choice in who becomes your roommate.

I don't know any actual stats, only that in searching for an apartment they came up a lot in searches and I assumed it was partly to make more money (a 3br apartment with 3 people paying $3k each is $9k vs renting the whole apartment for $6k-7k)

But, also, rent in general is too damn high and it's lowers the price "for some definition of lower".

View on HN

This is inevitable when vast numbers of people all want to live as close to the centers of a handful of major cities as they can. You either build megacities, let the market dictate who can afford to live there, or maybe start seriously realizing that from an economic and environmental point of view... maybe remote work is the solution.

I'm not convinced remote work is better than the market solution from an environmental point of view. Seems like having people as densely concentrated as they can be is best from an environmental standpoint.

Remote is definitely better than the status quo of subsidized suburbs housing car commuters though.

If we grind down humans into fine dust, we could fit trillions of people into San Francisco.

This is a Y Combinator forum, don’t give them ideas, I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody is already shopping out that pitch deck and Sam A is opening his checkbook.

That would probably be great from an environmental standpoint.

Notice I didn't say that we should only look from the environmnental standpoint.

> subsidized suburbs housing car commuters

Suburbs are subsidized? What do you mean?

They generate little value per acre. More acres = more infrastructure cost.

Look at the graph in this example @2:59: https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI?si=BVi7PNEizNnQ7FKh&t=179

Reply on news.ycombinator.com