> Is it so unthinkable to have bathrooms "down the hall"?

It is problematic, yes.

> After all, dormitories do that

The much-higher-than-surrounding-communities rates of sexual assaults on college campuses are concentrated in the dorms, so “dormitories do it” is maybe not a very good argument that it is a good idea for a broader population.

> The bathrooms don't even have to be shared, they're just down the hall where the plumbing is.

1:1 bathrooms to residential units are going to make you need to extend the plumbing considerably, at which point what is the point of not doing it to the individual units? Also, bathrooms aren’t the only reason habitable units need plumbing, kitchens need it, too.

"Women only" floors could be an option.

I know that shared bathrooms and kitchens would be less desirable. But if that meant paying half the rent? It's not for everyone, sure, but I'm also sure it would be suitable for a lot of people.

I would have preferred a single in college when I lived in a dorm, but the bathroom and kitchen down the hall wasn't a problem for me.

> “Women only” floors could be an option.

So could government support for the cost of conversions which just don’t leave this issue in place; women aren’t the only population for which a remote bathroom and kitchen are problematic.

What’s the other part of the population and how are they effected?

Some people need to use the bathroom frequently or have dietary needs requiring specific food prep. Even then, I wouldn't want to share a kitchen with someone who cooks things I can't stand the smell of.

So maybe they can continue to use the vast majority of existing housing that has dedicated kitchens and bathrooms, while the people who are right now living in their car--without either a kitchen or a bathroom at all--because they can't afford a glamorous apartment with all of these crazy privileges we take for granted (including stuff like insulation and electricity) that you are saying are "essential" can pay a fraction of the cost and live in a small/single bedroom-only unit at the pseudo-dorm?

But should cheap apartments that are possibly unpleasant be illegal? As someone who has been broke, it's very frustrating to not be able to rent something less nice for less money.

And this is why SRO's were made illegal. Although they would have been preferable to squatting at some park in a tent.

Lotta disabilities incur their highest personal costs in those two rooms.

Every bit of housing stock doesn’t have to meet every need of every part of the population. We can have variety, and choice. People will opt to live in different housing options throughout the phases of their life.

"Women can't access cheaper housing options because they risk being sexually assaulted" is a horrible look and not really the same as not choosing an house with stairs because you have bad knees.

Several furnished, individually-rented bedrooms sharing a common kitchen and bathrooms are called SRO’s, or “single room occupancy” buildings meant for adults living alone.

Unfortunately, that kind of housing has been zoned out of existence in most of the US.

I know it's been zoned out of existence. It's time to revisit that.

It's not unthinkable, but it's also just an example of one of the many things that need to be done to adapt.

You'll need to install separate electric service to each unit unless you want to share an electric bill with your neighbors.

You'll need separate HVAC unless you want to have one common thermostat and keep your home at the same temperature as everyone else's.

You'll need walls, and they really ought to be built to block some sound. You need walls that separate units, and each unit also needs internal walls since you probably want things like bedroom closets which office buildings don't usually have.

You're going to want a kitchen with cabinetry, appliances, and plumbing for sink and dishwasher.

Since you're building all that, you can just add plumbing in while you're doing it, either inside those walls you're building or along the ceiling.

Oh god don’t give the landlord a reason to make apartment living more dystopian than it is already

Nobody is going to make you live where you don't wanna live.

I've been wondering what effect these kinds of apartments would have on the price of fancier dwellings. A cheaper alternative might decrease all costs, or it could set a price floor below which even the really bad non-shared dwellings don't drop below.

> could set a price floor below which even the really bad non-shared dwellings don't drop below

What's effectively being suggested in these threads is a hostel and they already do exist in a number of cities, even in America (although they're more popular elsewhere).

I haven't seen a hostel create a "floor" in prices the way you describe. A really terrible motel is often cheaper than a nice shared hostel room. Even if it wasn't it would be a leap to say that new housing caused existing housing to go up in price.

But is a really terrible motel ever cheaper than a really terrible hostel?

> it would be a leap to say that new housing caused existing housing to go up in price.

This is the counter argument I'm considering. It really depends on the market incentives for landlords, and how that pans out. Whether an increase in shared-facility rentals result in a decrease of prices for non-shared rentals, or whether it results in equivalent numbers of non-shared rentals getting pulled out of the rental market entirely, and the remaining ones priced upward.

In Japan, its not uncommon to not have any plumbing at all in your housing, or perhaps just a shared toilet and no shower. In a traditional Beijing hutong, they have bath houses and public bathrooms to make up for the lack of plumbing. Not a fun life, but it can be worked around.