> And for many people WFH has other problems - if you're a dual-WFH couple in a small home, lack of home office space is a very real problem. (Although if WFH was a permanent thing, many people could choose less expensive places to live, and have more space)

Sure I get meetings you need to go to separate rooms, but how is the rest is different from a regular open office? Oh no, my co-working space has the person I like to spend time with?

Meetings aren't infrequent for many jobs. As well, small homes may not have the desired desk space for multiple full-time offices.

Sounds like whoever is scheduling meetings need to adapt to a new asynchronous environment whereas many meetings isn't necessary.

I'm not saying everyone must be WFH or that everyone must have a home office. I'm just having hard time imagining how two people cannot WFH in a 1-bedroom apartment. Unless both of them work in a call center.

> Sounds like whoever is scheduling meetings need to adapt to a new asynchronous environment whereas many meetings isn't necessary.

I agree, and a lot of my 'participation' in these meetings these days is read the papers, write my opinion, attach it to the documents and tell people I'm not attending.

That said we're 5 years in to this thing and people haven't adapted.

Usually best not to sleep with the people in your workplace?

I would love to have a coworking-space-on-every-block (or in every building) where all the WFHers can go to be around other people (just not the coworkers)

A place where We all work. Call it a WeWork maybe.

HN people always try to do this cute rhetorical gesture where you take a thing and say "hmm nice idea what if we called it <thing that already exists>", but they like this joke so much they get baited into doing it in dumb ways like this one.

A coworking space in every building != a WeWork. There's a big difference between these! You could implement the former by opening a million WeWorks but that doesn't sound good at all; residential apartment buildings already have common areas, free to residents, they would simply have to be reimagined slightly.

Everyone is paying for wework to do what their branch library can probably do for them.

Only issue is that my libraries close 5pm on weekends and 7pm on weekdays. Nothing for night owls.

If there would be enough demand to pay for it, it would stay open longer.

Libraries aren't paid for that demand though

They could be!

Here's a line from my local library's site:

> Our auditoriums are provided as a public service for use by individuals, institutions, groups, organizations, and corporations for a small fee, when not being used for library-affiliated or sponsored activities.

The libraries in my city get paid by membership. That's not exactly visits, but a correlated proxy.

Also if it would become really crowded they would probably think of prolonging opening hours.

Yeah, I was spoiled by my college town. Libraries open until 2AM, a 24 hour space for students. Even a few cafes downtown open 24 hours a day. Suburb life is mostly fine, but that's one thing I miss most.

Gotta travel 20 miles to downtown for anything resembling night life.

And maybe we can pool them a bit by profession, because they often need the same tools and can help each other. Any maybe they can even work on some of the same projects, so we can remove meetings.

I don't see how that's necessary at all. All the arguments that WFH might be a good idea in the first place would still hold.

I agree, 2 days a week in office is optimal. If they could coordinate which days to reduce traffic then... holy cow dream world.