Living like this is actually pretty common both at universities and as a young adult. You have private space, a shared kitchen/dining room, and the building has lounges and other public amenities.

Your room is for sleep, and possibly study, though there are other places on campus with fewer distractions. You can choose to eat and work together in groups in your dining room. You socialize away from your suite so you don't annoy your roommates.

The dorms that I used had all sorts of unpleasant features:

-- giant shared bathrooms had gang showers, or required you go go down 2 flights of stairs and along a hallway for 100 yards -- shared larger rooms with multiple beds and desks, creating issues around differing schedules -- no kitchens or cooking facilities -- no food storage facilities, creating unsanitary conditions

etc.

As an example, a fairly common layout that I've seen is a 3-room quad -- two very small rooms with two bunk beds, two dressers and maybe a close adjoining a not particularly large 'common' room with 4 desks, perhaps a mini-fridge, and a beat-up couch.

Munger's vision is a palace compared to this.

> The dorms that I used had all sorts of unpleasant features

Just because you had a poor dorm experience doesn't mean a brand new dorm built in 2021 needs to replicate that experience.

I detest architectural coercion. Who is this old rich fuck to force "socialization" (a dystopian word if there ever was one)? That's my business. Buildings and urban environments should be built to allow various degrees of social interaction based on one's own personal needs and determinations as you see fit, not some megalomaniacal lunatic's tyrannical and dehumanizing designs. This is the tyrannical streak running through modernist architecture. For some reason, some people with money see everyone else as rats or cattle that they can heard around as they please, for their "own good".

In an environment that respects human persons and their individuality as well as their social nature, the environment is structured according to subsidiarian principles. The town square is where anyone can socialize with anyone in town. Next the building courtyard is where anyone in the building can socialize with anyone else in the building. Next, the living room or common area of an apartment is where anyone can socialize with anyone in the apartment (analogously for single family homes). Individual bedrooms are for total privacy. I don't need to be coerced out of my bedroom if that's where I need to be because some crazy billionaire high on his own flatulence says so.

Be very wary of so-called "philanthropists". They are in love with their power to control and coerce, not the actual good.

To quote C. S. Lewis:

"My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."

Sir, this is a Wendy's

Or, you force socialization on a population that's increasingly turning inward, to the detriment of society in general.

It's hubris that on one hand HN can bitch about how egomaniacal companies like Facebook and Google are, and yet on the other complain about how architecture designed to promote socialization is unfair.

Where do we think those social-deaf, micro-optimizing engineers come from?

> Or, you force socialization on a population that's increasingly turning inward, to the detriment of society in general.

College kids living in dorms are turning inward? Do you have proof of that or that is just a hunch?

> ... yet on the other complain about how architecture designed to promote socialization is unfair.

The goal of making architecture promote socialisation is great. The complaint is not about the aim. The complaint is about how it is achieved.

Bedrooms with no natural light or natural air circulation suck. We don't build houses like this because it is not a good idea. Saying that your aim was to promote socialisation doesn't change that.

Among other things, architectural design makes decisions about how space is allocated and how it will probably be used. Of course, architects get things wrong. The dorm I lived in undergraduate did a fair bit well--and also had some common space that was sort of out of the way and was hardly ever used.

But one way or another, an architect is going to design things in a way that (they think) optimizes for certain behaviors and use whether that's socializing/collaborating or the maximum privacy/anonymity.