Bay Area Living in Shipping Containers(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Bay Area Living in Shipping Containers
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-30/wharton-grad-s-got-a-tiny-illegal-solution-to-bay-area-housing
84 comments
I live in one of these in San Francisco, and honestly I love it. For $1700/mo I can live in a nice residential neighborhood with a <10 minute commute. There's a full kitchen and a very spacious common area with couches, tables, a TV, and plenty of power. I sleep in one of the eight bunks in the master bedroom, right next to a balcony with a beautiful view of the skyline. Most of us are interns and temp contractors, with an occasional "adult" passing through while looking for permanent housing. Honestly, it's a lot nicer than my University housing and not much more expensive.
Without it, I'd have to either live somewhere where I fear for my safety, add 1-2 hours of BART commute onto my workday (and lose easy access to SF restaurants/culture), or spend $2500-$4000 for a studio in a comparable neighborhood.
Without it, I'd have to either live somewhere where I fear for my safety, add 1-2 hours of BART commute onto my workday (and lose easy access to SF restaurants/culture), or spend $2500-$4000 for a studio in a comparable neighborhood.
I'm not contradicting you, but $1700/mo for an incredibly overcrowded dorm room? Undergrad, doubles converted to triples were considered overcrowded. Wow. Maybe that's the norm in SF these days but it's not something I would have ever considered post-school.
The master bedroom is huge; a king-size bed would have taken less than 30% of the floor. There are two walk-in closets and a private bath.
Downstairs, there are 2 bedrooms that could have easily held 2 twin beds each, and another small room that could have taken 1 twin bed.
As a single-family home it would have comfortably slept 7. It's probably 2-3x larger than my childhood home and would have fetched $750,000+ in the suburban Midwest.
Convert all those twins to bunk beds (as my landlord did) and you've got 10 people across the downstairs bedrooms. Replace the king-size bed with 2 bunk beds, you've got 4 beds in the space where 1 was. 14 people sleeping in the same amount of floor space that 7 previously occupied. Now take the vast empty floor space in the master bedroom and add 2 bunk beds, and you're at the 18 that I live with.
It doesn't feel crowded. It has the same drawbacks that any room-sharing situation has - you're never alone, you have to hear people breathe and snore and shift around in bed, there's no possibility of having sex (you can sexile one person - not 7), you have to smell people's smells. But it's no worse than living in a double in college, summer camp, etc. I had no chance of bringing a girl home anyway, the sounds are drowned out by the city/wind when you've got a window open, and everyone is polite and sensitive to the fact that we're sharing space.
A portion of that price also goes to Airbnb, which gives me trust/reputation, escrow, precisely the dates of stay I wanted, and no monthslong Craigslist game as is usually necessary to sublet in SF.
Downstairs, there are 2 bedrooms that could have easily held 2 twin beds each, and another small room that could have taken 1 twin bed.
As a single-family home it would have comfortably slept 7. It's probably 2-3x larger than my childhood home and would have fetched $750,000+ in the suburban Midwest.
Convert all those twins to bunk beds (as my landlord did) and you've got 10 people across the downstairs bedrooms. Replace the king-size bed with 2 bunk beds, you've got 4 beds in the space where 1 was. 14 people sleeping in the same amount of floor space that 7 previously occupied. Now take the vast empty floor space in the master bedroom and add 2 bunk beds, and you're at the 18 that I live with.
It doesn't feel crowded. It has the same drawbacks that any room-sharing situation has - you're never alone, you have to hear people breathe and snore and shift around in bed, there's no possibility of having sex (you can sexile one person - not 7), you have to smell people's smells. But it's no worse than living in a double in college, summer camp, etc. I had no chance of bringing a girl home anyway, the sounds are drowned out by the city/wind when you've got a window open, and everyone is polite and sensitive to the fact that we're sharing space.
A portion of that price also goes to Airbnb, which gives me trust/reputation, escrow, precisely the dates of stay I wanted, and no monthslong Craigslist game as is usually necessary to sublet in SF.
Oh I understand it may be preferable to the alternatives. I just find paying that kind of money to effectively live in a hostel as a working professional to be pretty mind blowing. I'm glad I was never personally in that sort of situation.
You could easily live in Berkeley/Oakland in a nice 1 bedroom for 1700/mo and have a <20 minute commute. No roommates, nice neighborhood, probably even a washer/dryer if you're a little lucky.
If you work near a BART station, it's a faster commute than many parts of SF.
It's clear that the downsides are minimal to you, and the upsides worth it. I understand that. But you're freaking crazy thinking you have to live 2 hours away to find more reasonable prices. There are hardly even 2 hour lines on BART. Ditto on the safety issue; just know what parts of Oakland to avoid and you're all set.
If you work near a BART station, it's a faster commute than many parts of SF.
It's clear that the downsides are minimal to you, and the upsides worth it. I understand that. But you're freaking crazy thinking you have to live 2 hours away to find more reasonable prices. There are hardly even 2 hour lines on BART. Ditto on the safety issue; just know what parts of Oakland to avoid and you're all set.
>What a scumbag
I wouldn't say it's his fault. He's not doing it for charity, sure, but it's not his fault that the prices are insane. He's not forcing people to live there.
People double their money where I live renting places for $350/bed. People either can't afford a whole place to themselves or don't want to risk the hassle of renting an entire place and subleasing it, so they rent, realizing their combined rent is making a profit for the owner. It's just arbitrage.
> He leases the bungalow from a Chinese venture capitalist for about $6,800
That is just insane.
I wouldn't say it's his fault. He's not doing it for charity, sure, but it's not his fault that the prices are insane. He's not forcing people to live there.
People double their money where I live renting places for $350/bed. People either can't afford a whole place to themselves or don't want to risk the hassle of renting an entire place and subleasing it, so they rent, realizing their combined rent is making a profit for the owner. It's just arbitrage.
> He leases the bungalow from a Chinese venture capitalist for about $6,800
That is just insane.
No, but he's profiting off other people's misfortune.
I don't think that's fair. You're assuming that because the rent is $1,000/month he's a douchebag. The bay area has prices that are higher than Manhattan's. He's trying to provide cheap housing in an area where the prices are absolutely insane (try to find a room cheaper than that in Los Altos). He makes a profit from doing so - I don't think that makes him a terrible person.
Again, no one is forcing them to live there. They can come live where I do and get a three-bedroom house for $750/month, but they apparently want to live there. He gives them that chance.
Again, no one is forcing them to live there. They can come live where I do and get a three-bedroom house for $750/month, but they apparently want to live there. He gives them that chance.
What of that? Profiting from people's misfortune is not in and of itself wrong. (If it were, we would have to start by condemning every doctor in the world.) What's wrong is causing misfortune. If anyone is to be called scumbags, it should be the people who vote for laws restricting the construction of new housing. That's what creates these conditions.
I just moved to the bay area for work and I rented from Brandon for a week while I went apartment hunting.
I don't think he's a 'scumbag' or profiting off of others misfortune. I was able to rent a place to crash for ~$150 less per day than a hotel would have cost and I had access to a full kitchen, washer/dryer, fast internet etc, which I wouldn't have had with a hotel.
I don't think he's a 'scumbag' or profiting off of others misfortune. I was able to rent a place to crash for ~$150 less per day than a hotel would have cost and I had access to a full kitchen, washer/dryer, fast internet etc, which I wouldn't have had with a hotel.
If somebody forces people of misfortune to pay more because they're stuck, just to make a buck, that's pretty inarguably unethical.
If somebody gives people of misfortune a significantly cheaper option, which has its fair tradeoffs in delivered product, while still being profitable, I don't see much of a problem.
If somebody gives people of misfortune a significantly cheaper option, which has its fair tradeoffs in delivered product, while still being profitable, I don't see much of a problem.
It's a city not a prison.
Doesn't sound bad to me at all. I'd happily live in a shipping container to get rid of my one hour BART commute either way each day. My east bay rent is more than double that too. It seems better in every way that matters to me.
> monthly rates for a bed start at $1,000
This is the truly insane part.
This is the truly insane part.
Is that legal?
Of course not.
It's also probably a more humane solution than the currently popular option - don't build anything at all.
It's also probably a more humane solution than the currently popular option - don't build anything at all.
How do you know that's not legal?
There are generally pretty strict laws about how many people you can cram into how big a single-family residence. Multi-family residences (read: apartment buildings) are regulated differently.
[deleted]
In crowded markets, the materials cost is rarely significant compared to the real estate it sits on - living in a tent is still prohibitively expensive if you have to lease the square footage it is pitched on. This article is more about breaking zoning laws to save money than it is about shipping containers vs traditional construction.
> living in a tent is still prohibitively expensive if you have to lease the square footage it is pitched on
The difference is tents aren't designed to be stackable. https://www.google.com/search?q=shipping+container+stacks&tb...
But as below comments mention, generally steel intermodal containers make pretty poor livable areas for a variety of reasons. Lack of insulation, hard surfaces, contamination from previous contents, weight and difficulty in handling without heavy machinery, lack of local sourcability, etc. etc.
Your ideal use case is probably a port area with extremely high population density and an advanced economy (for heavy machinery) but an extremely high wealth disparity, in a reasonable climate. So, maybe SE Asian port cities? With a sacrificial layer of containers on the outside to heat-sink?
The difference is tents aren't designed to be stackable. https://www.google.com/search?q=shipping+container+stacks&tb...
But as below comments mention, generally steel intermodal containers make pretty poor livable areas for a variety of reasons. Lack of insulation, hard surfaces, contamination from previous contents, weight and difficulty in handling without heavy machinery, lack of local sourcability, etc. etc.
Your ideal use case is probably a port area with extremely high population density and an advanced economy (for heavy machinery) but an extremely high wealth disparity, in a reasonable climate. So, maybe SE Asian port cities? With a sacrificial layer of containers on the outside to heat-sink?
This stuff is straight out of "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson. What's next? Facebook powered Metaverse and bikers with sovereign status because they pack personal nuclear weapons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash
Probably Ready Player One style vandwelling technomads.
I'm almost in such a setup.
I'm almost in such a setup.
I accept this future as long as rat things (robotic, nuclear powered creatures matching the form of a canine) become a thing.
"As part of Mr. Lee's good neighbor policy, all Rat Things are programmed never to break the sound barrier in a populated area. But Fido's in too much of a hurry to worry about the good neighbor policy."
"As part of Mr. Lee's good neighbor policy, all Rat Things are programmed never to break the sound barrier in a populated area. But Fido's in too much of a hurry to worry about the good neighbor policy."
Jack the barrier. Bring the noise.
Facebook powered Metaverse?
Given that Facebook owns the premiere Virtual Reality company right now, which employs one of the greatest 3D programmers living, who has explicitly stated that he'd like to create Stephenson's Metaverse for real, I think we're already well on the way to that one.
Given that Facebook owns the premiere Virtual Reality company right now, which employs one of the greatest 3D programmers living, who has explicitly stated that he'd like to create Stephenson's Metaverse for real, I think we're already well on the way to that one.
See also an episode from The X-Files - Kill Switch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Switch_%28The_X-Files%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Switch_%28The_X-Files%29
Glad you brought up Snow Crash. I would have if not; it's all I could think about after reading it.
Have seen numerous shipping container housing projects over the years and none of them really took off. To make containers truly livable long term (combining multiple containers, decent finishes, buildout etc) it seems to cross a price threshold where a person who can afford to do it would likely build a traditional dwelling.
This is more about creative subdividing to me. Whether it's a tent or a shipping container.
This is more about creative subdividing to me. Whether it's a tent or a shipping container.
In Ghana they are used extensively as shops/storefronts, but no one lives in shipping containers. Even in the most rural areas, people make houses literally brick by brick (buying 1-2 bricks at a time) instead of using shipping containers for housing. I think it's for the reason you suggest, and for the additional reason that I imagine living in a shipping container to be somewhat akin to living in a big metal dumpster.
Why would anyone buy bricks in such small numbers, instead of saving up? A wall with two extra bricks on it isn't more useful.
Is it just impossible to save money safely?
Is it just impossible to save money safely?
In this [1] excellent book, it is said that they do it as form of saving. Basically, they don't have bank accounts, and they know that if they don't buy those 1-2 bricks right away after they get paid, they'll spend the money on something else.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Poor-Economics-Radical-Rethinking-Pove...
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Poor-Economics-Radical-Rethinking-Pove...
This is a large part of the reason. Money that gets earned gets spent pretty quickly on one thing or another, and it would be next to impossible for a family to save up enough to buy all the materials to build a house in one go.
Another reason is that they don't have easy access to credit markets, so they can't just get a mortgage and move into a home and start paying it off.
One more part of the reason is that they usually build the homes themselves, and its rewarding to see the house go up brick by brick - visual progress is being made.
I'm not an expert, but these are my informed observations and learnings.
Another reason is that they don't have easy access to credit markets, so they can't just get a mortgage and move into a home and start paying it off.
One more part of the reason is that they usually build the homes themselves, and its rewarding to see the house go up brick by brick - visual progress is being made.
I'm not an expert, but these are my informed observations and learnings.
Maybe because of transportation? They probably need to walk those bricks to the house.
Inflation? Spend X amount now and get 3 bricks or wait a year and only get 2?
Wouldn't a fire in a shipping container be pretty much disastrous though? I can't even imagine how hot it would get.
I liked the idea of a shipping container home, but my brief research into it showed it's not much/any cheaper than a regular home.
I liked the idea of a shipping container home, but my brief research into it showed it's not much/any cheaper than a regular home.
But shipping containers do provide a structure to work from, and don't require knowledge of framing, masonry, etc. that building something de novo would. Also, for SF, they are pretty earthquake-proof (unless you stack them Ready Player One style).
I think it really depends on climate but overall it's more insulated, sturdy, overall better just to do a stick built 2x6 structure the same size.
I'm sure the biggest issue is that it's a lot harder to fly under the existing zoning/regulatory umbrella if you build a structure. Most "micro-apartments" are significantly bigger than shipping containers (which are 320 sq. ft.) but even so, at least in Boston, their rents are still in the $2K/month range. It's really about the land price and how much vertical building there is. This amounts to unofficial squatting on industrial land. Of course it's going to be cheaper but it doesn't really solve any problem.
It's a bit amusing to me that a concept originally envisioned to help provide housing for the destitute is now being pitched as tech worker housing in the bay area...
"Cargotecture" is not uncommon in the Netherlands:
Shipping Container Houses, Amsterdam Noord
http://greetingsfromholland.blogspot.nl/2010/08/shipping-con...
Keetwonen (Amsterdam student housing)
http://www.tempohousing.com/projects/keetwonen.html
Amsterdam's Shipping Container Homes Are Lean And Green
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/amsterdam-shipping-...
Shipping Container Architecture
http://blog.designpublic.com/2008/10/27/shipping-container-a...
The Dutch have a thing for recycled architecture. You can see the colorful student shipping container housing off in the distance from the bungee jumping platform at the top of the luxurious Faralda Crane Hotel at NDSM ship wharf, at around 10:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=860OXQjf87w
They even made the KamerMaker, a 3D house printer, in a shipping container:
http://www.threefarm.com/http/threefarmtumblrcom/2014/3/18/t...
Shipping Container Houses, Amsterdam Noord
http://greetingsfromholland.blogspot.nl/2010/08/shipping-con...
Keetwonen (Amsterdam student housing)
http://www.tempohousing.com/projects/keetwonen.html
Amsterdam's Shipping Container Homes Are Lean And Green
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/amsterdam-shipping-...
Shipping Container Architecture
http://blog.designpublic.com/2008/10/27/shipping-container-a...
The Dutch have a thing for recycled architecture. You can see the colorful student shipping container housing off in the distance from the bungee jumping platform at the top of the luxurious Faralda Crane Hotel at NDSM ship wharf, at around 10:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=860OXQjf87w
They even made the KamerMaker, a 3D house printer, in a shipping container:
http://www.threefarm.com/http/threefarmtumblrcom/2014/3/18/t...
This is a terrible idea. The problem is not finding cheap building materials but optimizing land use.
I look around the bay area and I see a ton of single family homes. Where are the large multi-story apartment buildings?
I look around the bay area and I see a ton of single family homes. Where are the large multi-story apartment buildings?
Being beaten down by a multitude of NIMBY forces, powered by perverse incentives.
yeah, perverse incentives like preserving natural beauty and avoiding untenable population density
edit: but if you build larger living spaces in places that nobody wants to live, i'm happy with that
edit: but if you build larger living spaces in places that nobody wants to live, i'm happy with that
Building up is a perfect balance between preserving beauty and nature and price.
The reality is that the real blight on nature is the single family homes which are built on forests and farmland.
The reality is that the real blight on nature is the single family homes which are built on forests and farmland.
> avoiding untenable population density
San Francisco is already at an untenable population density. You can have a livable city by going light or going dense, but being in the middle is what kills you (which is where SF is right now).
The light scenario is your classic suburbia, where you drive across the street. Dense is New York City, with many amenities in walking distance and copious public transportation. The middle (San Francisco) doesn't have enough people to support good public transit (buses/trains stopping every 5 minutes or less) 24 hrs a day, but has so many people that the roads are gridlocked.
SF needs to thin out or get dense if it wants to survive. What force do you think will decimate the population by 50%?
San Francisco is already at an untenable population density. You can have a livable city by going light or going dense, but being in the middle is what kills you (which is where SF is right now).
The light scenario is your classic suburbia, where you drive across the street. Dense is New York City, with many amenities in walking distance and copious public transportation. The middle (San Francisco) doesn't have enough people to support good public transit (buses/trains stopping every 5 minutes or less) 24 hrs a day, but has so many people that the roads are gridlocked.
SF needs to thin out or get dense if it wants to survive. What force do you think will decimate the population by 50%?
> untenable population density
Visit Hong Kong and see what population density really looks like.
Visit Hong Kong and see what population density really looks like.
Honestly, I think these people are dicks: http://kalw.org/post/how-tiny-shipping-container-community-c...
Not only is this an issue of residential codes. The other problem is that they're doing manufacturing in a residential neighborhood that's not zoned for manufacturing. And it's disturbing the neighbors in the area with noise and even sewage spillover.
Not only is this an issue of residential codes. The other problem is that they're doing manufacturing in a residential neighborhood that's not zoned for manufacturing. And it's disturbing the neighbors in the area with noise and even sewage spillover.
They sound so ridiculously tone deaf like the idea of having people move into your neighbor and build houses from the ground up, unregulated, out of shipping containers shouldn't bother anyone in the slightest.
I was wondering how they would handle the sewage unless they had a hookup to the sewer line it seemed like they were basically creating a campground.
Problem with shipping containers is that they should be decontaminated and sanded down prior to living use - the contents get gassed, leak out dangerous stuff and old insulation materials may prove dangerous, same for the paint.
Good point. Also, I can't imagine it's safe to be running that camp stove in an enclosed space either.
It never is. That's why all camp stoves come with a warning not to cook in enclosed spaces. Just a few weeks ago I was out camping and a father/son duo died in their tent because it was raining out and they wanted to use the stove to warm up food.
These shipping containers are converted. The idea isn't to just take a shipping container and start living there. You convert it so it is safe to live in it.
Cheap housing for Docker interns
High rent in the Bay Area is primarily due to poor land use. Not only are most buildings very short, but there's a ton of unused land near 280. It doesn't make sense to solve a political issue with technology.
Ummm if by "unused land" you mean open space preserves, parks, amazing redwood groves, etc...then yes, there is "unused land."
Building out on those areas because there's currently demand over on that side of the Bay (because it's closer to Stanford and Sandhill road) would be a big time shame.
Building out on those areas because there's currently demand over on that side of the Bay (because it's closer to Stanford and Sandhill road) would be a big time shame.
I thought the Stanford/Sandhill area surrounding 280 was undeveloped because the land is owned by Stanford. Not so?
> there's a ton of unused land near 280.
It's not "unused", it's just not being used for human development. Wildlife and nature enthusiasts make very effective use of that land, and the fact that it exists is one of the things that makes living in the developed areas so desirable.
It's not "unused", it's just not being used for human development. Wildlife and nature enthusiasts make very effective use of that land, and the fact that it exists is one of the things that makes living in the developed areas so desirable.
If you want to see vast spaces of unused land in the Bay Area, just take a drive from Fremont to Livermore via I-680 and then 84. Tons of open space, nobody living there...
[deleted]
some more info:
http://www.boxouse.com/
Luke is YC
Here's a 28min video of him and Heather showing off the project back in October https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfqunEuw61k
heard about this a few months ago and I find it pretty cool. if only the laws were more favourable...
http://www.boxouse.com/
Luke is YC
Here's a 28min video of him and Heather showing off the project back in October https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfqunEuw61k
heard about this a few months ago and I find it pretty cool. if only the laws were more favourable...
Student housing Groningen, for years already: http://www.studenten.net/lifestyle/lifestyle/16842/wonen_in_... ( Dutch with pictures )
Neat project, but actual construction costs aren't what are driving bay area housing prices.
Edit: and looking at their website (http://www.boxouse.com/), solving bay area housing doesn't seem to be the actual business proposition.
Edit: and looking at their website (http://www.boxouse.com/), solving bay area housing doesn't seem to be the actual business proposition.
So much BS in that website it's tough to read past the initial paragraphs.
Wow, so the response to squatters illegally living in a office building that is zoned non-residential is "you should figure out a way to make the office building legal to live in"?!
Either Ivy Lee's comments reflect a serious, willful, inability to see reality and enforce the laws, or it is simply a poorly thought through excuse for a willful choice to not enforce the laws. It reflects a deep dysfunction either way. A few precedents like that would make me very, very hesitant to purchase commercial property in San Francisco.
Either Ivy Lee's comments reflect a serious, willful, inability to see reality and enforce the laws, or it is simply a poorly thought through excuse for a willful choice to not enforce the laws. It reflects a deep dysfunction either way. A few precedents like that would make me very, very hesitant to purchase commercial property in San Francisco.
SF has been like this for decades. There is a reason why the entire bay area has this anti-development problem.
In one of William Gibson's Bridge Trilogy novels one of the main characters lives in a shipping container in Southern California. It has come to pass.
Just build tall buildings. If Taipei and Hong Kong can do it, so can SF.
Reminds me of JG Ballard's Billenium where an overcrowded world has people living in three point five square meter rooms that were subdivided out of any space possible. Basically a world where to get more space you had to get married and marriage required three children, all furthering the population density problems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billennium_%28short_story%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billennium_%28short_story%29
They should look into the container park in downtown Las Vegas (Tony Hsieh's pet project) which has been immensely successful - city codes and all! :)
Those look like a death trap if there were a fire. I also can't help but think of Bubbles from Trailer Park Boys living in his storage shed.
It does seem like cooking on a campstove is not a safe choice, induction hotplates are cheap and powerful, assuming there's electricity.
I actually like the shipping containers. They're a bit expensive, but I guess at the rate of everything else it's about what you're gonna get.
I smell another Docker pivot
Maybe it's time tech companies let their engineers globally work remotely from comfortable places, instead of parking them into metal boxes and sweetening the deal with catered lunches.
+1 - However you'll find no love within the HN crowd. YC and many SV startups are vehemently against remote work. That's why I was stunned when YC allowed for new fellowship applicants to work remotely (so maybe it's getting better...?).
I think a lot of it has todo with ego, investor show-ponying and lack of solid culture. Beyond that many startups justify paying their employees like shit for small office perks like free lunch and couches. That type of stuff doesn't really work remotely.
I think a lot of it has todo with ego, investor show-ponying and lack of solid culture. Beyond that many startups justify paying their employees like shit for small office perks like free lunch and couches. That type of stuff doesn't really work remotely.
I do understand the desire for co-located teams up to a certain point. Today, I certainly work outside an office more than inside. That said, I have a lot of trouble seeing how remote work would have been a net positive when I was starting out. Admittedly, technologies we had available for communication weren't as good then but that part of my career was so dominated by F2F interactions that it's hard to imagine I would have been as effective as a remote worker. (I was a product manager for mostly system hardware.)
I 100% agree. Remote working has really only worked for the past 5-10 years (probably less than 10).
Async chat tools, file sharing, conference calls, video chats, etc. are the lifeblood of communication at remote companies. Without those tools it's very hard to make remote working work.
People who say remote work doesn't work often times still rely on things like email...that's just not how it works. If you're communicating internally via email you're doing it wrong.
That's not to say tools define remote culture, but they certainly help reinforce it.
Async chat tools, file sharing, conference calls, video chats, etc. are the lifeblood of communication at remote companies. Without those tools it's very hard to make remote working work.
People who say remote work doesn't work often times still rely on things like email...that's just not how it works. If you're communicating internally via email you're doing it wrong.
That's not to say tools define remote culture, but they certainly help reinforce it.
Today's tools are certainly better. We had conference calls (and internal-only email) but basically none of the other tools you list. And maybe if a company had a real remote worker culture, it would be natural to slip into it even as a new hire. It's just a bit hard for me to imagine based on my own experience. But, as I say, different time and different culture.
Or, you know, open more satellite offices (that do real work) in lower-cost areas.
Exactly. I'm in the middle of a cross-country relocation because we decided that the bay area is just too damn expensive for its own good. Since I telecommute exclusively anyway, the move was a no-brainer once we sold ourselves on the idea of leaving the area.
[deleted]
“This is scalable,” said Williams, 28, a freelance electrical engineer. “I know a guy who has about 12 of these.”
What a scumbag.