If cost of living is so high, I wonder why they wouldn't invest in a dorm-like living space for founders? I'm not familiar with the area, so I imagine there's reasons for it, but being able to focus on work instead of life-maintenance details seems like it would benefit the organization.
(a) It's not clear why YC could run an apartment complex better or cheaper than the many companies who already do it (including some YC-funded startups like https://zeusliving.com)
(b) Founders tend to be independent-minded people who like to do things their own way.
why would existing companies be offering cheaper? The price will be set by the market, and any saving will be taken as profit, not passed on to the tenants.
The easiest way to insure against rent increase is buy a big chunk of local land. Actually offering it to your own startups just means they reduce overheads a little, provide an extra perk, and a small competitive advantage.
What is the opportunity cost of that land investment? Is YC really better off getting into the landlord business rather than using the same money to fund more companies?
Among other things, I'd expect this is because YC is trying to break free of the idea that the only way to be a successful startup founder is to be a young, single, attachment-free man.
Successful startups are created by all kinds of people in all kinds of different life situations, and YC needs to be careful to be inviting to as broad an array of people as possible.
At the same time, I agree that dorm-style living (along with other nontraditional styles of living like mulitigenerational or multifamily units, cohousing, coliving, etc...) is a great idea and our culture should work to be more supportive of experimenting with housing. Especially, as you said, in areas with severely impacted housing markets.
From the beginning, YC was opposed to the incubator model, which that idea would be more aligned with. Even having startups share offices was never something they were interested in. That was partly because they had no interest in managing offices, or managing at all (or offices, for that matter). But there were deeper reasons: the sense that great startups develop in environments of their own creation, a suspicion of scenesterism, and ultimately the fact that they wouldn't have liked to work that way themselves. They strongly approved of saving money, but were more the kind of people who would work out of an apartment (as Viaweb indeed had). The incubator model comes more out of a business-managerial way of thinking. Words like 'synergy' come to mind.
One of the first things YC partners say to you when you the program starts is: "We are not your employers, we will let you fail." I think that's a core part of how YC works and things like sharing office space or having dorms would degrade that by helping founders to escape some of the responsibilities of their company.
For people in YC who are looking for places to work though and want to get out of their apartments I highly recommend the public libraries in Mountain View and the surrounding towns. They're quiet, well lit, have fast wifi, comfortable chairs and desks, and lots of nooks and crannies without much distracting foot traffic.
Employers let employees fail all the time, and when that happens the stop giving them money. When a startup fails VCs stop giving them money. The illusion of autonomy motivates some people, but make make no mistake - when you take VC money you are an employee of that VC firm - with low pay, no benefits, no title, no desk, etc.
This isn't true in the general case. If you found a startup that's profitable, for example, you have genuine autonomy to an extent that you simply couldn't obtain as an employee, no matter how successful.
This is true in the general case. In the general case a startup isn't going to be successful, the founder is inexperienced and easily pushed around by the VCs, and generally needs to follow their orders to keep bridge rounds, etc coming.
In the rare case of a successful startup, if the board doesn't replace the founder with an experienced executive, the founder probably has as much autonomy as corporate executive in charge of a successful division of a company.
That doesn't sound right to me (I've been in the YC network for 10+ years, as has dang), and is at odds with what tlb (an original and still-serving YC partner) said in this comment [1] above, and what has always been YC ethos.
Maybe the person who told you that was mistaken? Or it may have been a YC partner or staff member doing it privately?
I'd expect YC might informally be able to point out such places, or formally invest in some with the right vision, but would not necessarily get further into managing housing themselves. And, too much density/interaction with disparate teams might at some point become counterproductive, compared to the classic "intense founders of the same entity living together to the exclusion of other distractions" model, or the rising capabilities of mostly-remote teams.
This would benefit a subset of founders - those who are young and single. What if you have a partner? A family?
YC is actively moving away from its roots as an alternative to a summer internship for college students to premier seed / Series A investor for companies with traction. Your suggestion runs counter to where they're headed.
Liability. Someone slips and falls, someone is (sexually) assaulted in the dorm, etc...
It would probably be exceptionally helpful for a lot of YC founders I imagine, but in addition to the liability, the optics are kind of creepy in that certain SV culture kind of way they likely want to avoid.
To be among likeminded people to use as a network for social and business purposes for one. You're more likely to feel at home and happy if you are surrounded by people going through similar challenges as you. I'm sure there are other reasons.
