I’m not sure what the article is complaining about. I know 2 per bedroom is widely allowed in the US. But more isn’t. It seems like the article is looking to revitalize the concept of a large dormitory where people mostly just come to sleep. Maybe I’m wrong but the article doesn’t do a good job of saying what the problem is.

Either way I don’t think most millennials want more than 2 per room anyway.

> I’m not sure what the article is complaining about.

It's right there in the article:

"And as SROs disappeared, homelessness—which had been rare from at least the end of the Great Depression to the late 1970s—exploded nationwide."

The problem is that there's a "housing crisis" (which really just means that desirable places are more expensive than people would like for the most part, because homelessness is not up significantly since that term became popular to my knowledge) largely created by a lack of new housing starts in those areas, and existing laws bar people from circumventing that with alternative arrangements.

I don't understand why local governments feel like they need to regulate every aspect of a household. Enact laws against the negative externalities that are associated with SRO occupancy if the existing residents want them, and then leave things alone.