I also don't really buy the logic of why this hasn't spread in America (despite having multiple houses in my neighborhood filled with gradstudents):
> the model has been slower to spread, because Americans typically see their home as a primary store of wealth
I think it has less to do with seeing the home as a store of wealth than that having roommates is more often than not a pain and most people go on to have family in which case you already have people filling up all the rooms.
The main difference seems to be that it involves older people, but this speaks more to trends in starting a family later or not at all rather than anything to do with this remarkable new Danish discovery.
I cannot imagine living in those circumstances until 40. Or trying to raise a child in that environment.
The historical idea of "communal living" meant living with your parents and grandparents as a large family unit, not moving into the city to live with 9 strangers in a rented flat.
This picture looks like the destruction of personal and family wealth to me.
The Sackler family took mine! Older brother squandered everything before I even considered a career.
Inflation is eating whatever I scrounge. I'd call myself lucky, and yet...
What would actually ease a housing crunch would be more floorspace, so that floorspace owners had less pricing power.
My personal "solution" to housing problems in the US was to move into an RV. I also get 400 sq ft, which are all mine, and I get a lot which has a nice yard with a tree that gives generous shade, and a fence enclosing the lot on three sides. I pay a similar amount in space rent ($1000/mo in Northern CA) and my RV is paid off. It also means I can move to a new city with relatively little difficulty should that need arise.
I arrived at this because the idea of cohabitating or even living in a wood framed apartment building with 50 (or more) other units surrounding me simply became untenable. I would have loved to buy a house, but the housing and labor markets being what they are, this was the best I could come up with.
First, 55 is not elderly. I know the author did not say it is, but the next sentence prompted an audible "Oh, hells no" from me!
Second, people I know do a terrible job planning for their future re: aging. They overestimate their energy and health at X age. For example, they have no idea of how health can quickly spiral and make everything else more of a challenge. They have no idea about what kinds of supports and services they will need. And while companionship is important, relying on non-family for some or many challenges associated with getting older is foolish, unsustainable, fill-in-the-blank.
I've long wondered whether cohousing as described in the article along with a smidge of old-time settlement houses would be more beneficial to residents, particularly older ones. In my head, I've thought that returning to on-site staff along with professional visitors (health, etc.) would make the sweet spot.
In the US at least, we need to do more and do better regarding housing, community support (neighbors, not services), and addressing those who may need more help than others (older, chronically ill, etc.). Cohousing may be part of the solution.
They should ask their children about that.
runarb•5mo ago