Very glad this topic is coming up more. It was the default living arrangement for the majority of human history, and still is for much of the world. Here in Ame

Very glad this topic is coming up more. It was the default living arrangement for the majority of human history, and still is for much of the world. Here in America, and for much of the industrialized west, the ideal of the nuclear family (non-coincidentally invented during the rise of industrialism) is quite frankly too narrow. With their deep protestant roots, Americans would do well to look at how families were organized in the Bible and see that the ideal of rugged individualism and nuclear family 2 1/2 kid white picket fence households clash with that greatly. Critiques of the article: Multigenerational is too narrow in this sense. It doesn't have to be explicitly in the same house. It could be the same household. It could be a commune, or a clan. I think its best if you pursue this you still have separate living quarters, but have dedicated common areas. Of course it may be the case that its not be feasible (space limitations), but it goes on to my next point, this article is trying to frame multigenerational housing as a solution to a problem, not to view it from a standpoint of the problems we are facing are because we moved away from multigenerational housing/local communities. Secondly, must everything have to be viewed in such a utilitarian context? It's exhausting, quite frankly. Not everything has to be viewed as some scale of benefits, and if the scales are too unbalanced then it's somehow "unjust". Perhaps taking care of your mother is a noble thing to do, and yes, it will exhaust you, and yes you might not get out of it the measure of benefit as she is, at least materially.