Discover more from Supernuclear
The New Yorker dives deep into coliving
And mentions Supernuclear of course ...
Thanks everyone who has donated (via paid subscription) so that we can hire help to bring more content to Supernuclear readers. As previously mentioned, we plan to keep 100% of articles free, but are optionally allowing contributions from anyone who wants to voluntarily donate. Upgrade your subscription if you want to donate.
Nathan Heller ran a long feature on coliving in the New Yorker, highlighting some of our favorite communities.
Treehouse LA got a lot of the ink. I have visited and can confirm everything Nathan reports. It’s a wonderful community and they seem to have figured out how to keep a feeling of intimacy and community empowerment despite being a for-profit VC-funded operator.
Some highlights from the article:
The built environment is not made for coliving .. but that’s changing: The article quotes a study saying that only twelve per cent of co-living communities were housed in buildings made for that purpose. But within two years that number has close to doubled.
Delightful quotes from Zarinah Agnew, the patron saint of Bay Area coliving. My favorite: “I think this house is, if you’ll forgive the disgusting language, a bit of a sociopolitical incubator for little ideas, which start and fly off into the wind like seeds.” We love the idea of a sociopolitical incubator.
The article gives some examples of how communities resolved conflict, including one particularly challenging moment at Treehouse surrounding the George Floyd killing. Seth Frey, from the Embassy puts it nicely: “The need to share is a source of conflict, which is a source of conflict resolution.” The resolution process builds intimacy
The whole thing is chock full of interesting color and Nathan really pins down the true motivations and experience rather than the typical lazy reporting one usually sees on coliving (aka “they must be doing it because it’s cheap”). The whole thing is worth a full read!