> Am I the only person who thinks this is luxury?

How much do you think it costs to add the "luxury" you see here vs construction costs for the actual building?

Spoiler alert: very little.

So it makes perfect sense to make the interior a bit nicer for what is at most 10% of the total cost.

You probably could save a little on community showers, but given this is private construction, not university dorms its not surprising that this more closely resembles a studio rather than a dorm.

You're speaking as if there's a one-to-one relationship between construction costs and the value of the product.

It costs relatively little to add luxury to an apartment, but that's not even the point. The value of a dwelling doesn't come from totaling all the expenses of building it, but from what people are willing to pay. When you take the modern spoiled American young person and their parents, show them an essentially furnished studio with a kitchenette, a bathroom, a TV, and then show them a spartan studio apartment with basically nothing in it (but costs a fraction of the other apartment), they'll gladly pay more for the first one because nothing's too good for their child.

So yes, relatively little can turn an apartment into what, for university students, is luxury. Nobody I've known ever had university dorms that nice. I don't even care if Berkeley students are somehow better than other university students; they'd be throwing away money by living there. I would much rather take that money and set it on fire.

Yeah its quite something just how far the concept of dormitory living has shifted. I would expect student housing to be some of the most austere options out there on the market.

A large desk, a small bed, and the real luxuries if they can be got: Lots of natural light and freedom from noise.

The studio pictured seems to do OK on the lux, but the area granted to television and whatever's below it seems wacky. Then again, if people want it and will pay for it...

The lux is mostly having both a private bathroom and private kitchenette--which I never had as a grad student--although I did have a private room for some of my time. Other than that, a flat panel TV is, what? $300? And slightly nicer looking, in part because it's new, minimalist furniture doesn't add a lot of cost either.

ADDED: This seems to have been originally designed as a hotel or studio apartments but is being leased to Berkeley as grad student housing. They're pretty small as apartments go but are probably on the high-end side for student housing, even grad student.

Note that these are for graduate students - it's not really a "dorm" in the traditional sense.

You're talking about graduate students - they're likely going to be there for 5-6 years, and are actual adults. They might want to - you know - date someone. Or make a space their own.

And having been serious about one of those worthwhile degrees, I still watched TV. Living like a monk and doing nothing but studying for the entirety of your PhD, and pretending the surrounds you do it in don't matter, is a recipe for having a breakdown.

The picture you shared is a render; of course it's supposed to look somewhat decent. I'd assume most rooms look only somewhat similar to that one.

> They built these things to bilk young people out of more money because they know my generation and Gen Z grew up spoiled and have suburbanite parents that think nothing's too good for their son or daughter.

Uh, what? Many parents can barely afford to send their children to college. Most end up paying for much smaller dorm rooms where their children share space with others. What makes you think that people are regularly blowing money for housing (keeping in mind that a TV isn't all that expensive)–and even if they are, why do you care?

> Am I the only person who thinks this is luxury? > https://www.berkeleyside.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2711....

I've lived in plenty of apartments that are like this and from experience, looks are extremely deceiving. Especially when it comes to apartments. They look nice most of the time, but feel and look cheap up close. To the point I've felt disappointed and ripped off if I wasn't able to see a place in person.

I agree on the affordable part- I live in a major college town being filled up by "luxury dorms" that are shoddily built and have cheap furniture stuffed in to the gills but are 725 a ROOM in a 6/6 apartment.

but I don't know, the tv is whatever in this age of cable cutting but after sharing a dorm bathroom with 40 plus people for one 16-week semester, even if i just come home to my apartment now some nights to sleep between work/class having my own space does wonders for my mental health.

The stuff in that ant apartment is at most $100 of the monthly rent.

As I mentioned above, the point is not that the actual cost of the furnishings and the bathroom are somehow wrapped into the rent. It's that people are willing to pay extra for something they ultimately don't actually need. People will usually choose superficial quality over something more utilitarian, and will pay handsomely for it because it makes them feel like they're at home in mom and dad's suburban mansion.

> pay extra for something they ultimately don't actually need

Do you understand the concept of "want"? Things have value to people.

If you want to be so reductionist as to say that we should only have what we "need", then we don't need higher education - or any education. We don't need air conditioning, cell phones, lighting, or plumbing. All we really need is a shelter from our immediate environment and a food source.

Capitalism and the modern world in general are driven in a large part by what people want. Acting on these wants is much of what has driven humanity to where it us today. And wanting things is an absolutely fine emotion to have - more than fine to act on if it's within your financial means.

What you are proposing is a group living style building which is basically banned in a lot of Berkeley.

So reducing the size of rooms by eliminating the bathroom and kitchenette and having public restrooms makes it group style living?

I'd certainly love a world where merely being able to live comfortably doesn't eat the majority of one's income. But if the system is fine introducing more "affordable" housing to young people who are already taking on the majority of the debt, there's a serious problem. They should reduce the expense of students wherever possible, within reason. I've known very intelligent, highly successful individuals who lived with much less at university. Calling building these apartments for students and calling them affordable is absurd.

The average rent prices for a studio in SF is 2500$+ a month and you are worried about a university "wasting" 100$ on a TV?

How about we instead work to reduce rent prices by building more housing?

I blame the parents, not the kids.