Housing, Society, and the “Useless Class”

Michael Demb
Nov 6
4 min read

Introduction

Good afternoon. It’s been a while since I last gave a lecture, and I wanted to share with you a journey I began a few years ago. Around 2020, I was looking for a theme for my graduation project in design. At that time, my life had already been intertwined with construction—I had a building company in Israel where we built several houses. That experience, together with my personal interest in architecture and social questions, led me to this project.

At the same time, I was reading Yuval Noah Harari’s book Homo Deus, where he introduces the idea of a new social group he calls the “useless class.” This became the foundation for my conceptual design work.

The “Useless Class” Concept

Harari’s Theory

Harari describes how history has moved through several revolutions: first the cognitive revolution, then the agricultural revolution, followed by the industrial revolution. Each of these displaced certain jobs but created many new ones. Today, however, with the rise of artificial intelligence and automation, we may be entering a new revolution in which more jobs are destroyed than created.

This would give rise to a group of people—what Harari calls the “useless class.” Not “useless” as human beings, but economically unemployable, because there are no longer enough jobs to absorb them.

The Social Dilemma

So, what do we do with a population that cannot be employed? Harari and others argue that they must still be supported—through universal basic income (UBI) or other social programs—otherwise unrest, crime, and even wars could result. But beyond financial support, people also need meaningful places to live, environments that sustain dignity, creativity, and community.

This intersection between design, architecture, and social policy became the focus of my project.

Universal Basic Income Experiments

Experiments with UBI already exist:

Finland ran a UBI trial where about 2,000 unemployed people received monthly payments with no conditions. Results showed improvements in well-being and mental health, though employment effects were mixed.
Kenya and other African countries: NGOs like GiveDirectly ran long-term experiments where villagers received unconditional cash transfers. Interestingly, recipients often invested the money productively—buying tools, starting businesses, or improving their homes. Monthly payments proved more effective than one-time lump sums, since they created a sense of security and willingness to take risks.
Canada (Manitoba, 1970s) had a UBI-like experiment (“Mincome”), which showed positive effects on health and education outcomes.

These results challenge the assumption that people given unconditional money will waste it. Many instead pursue creative or socially valuable activities.

Housing the “Useless Class”: Design Lessons

If UBI provides income, where and how will people live? Housing is not just shelter—it shapes community, safety, and quality of life. To explore this, I studied historical and modern examples of social housing.

Failed Experiments

Cabrini–Green, Chicago: Massive public housing towers intended to solve urban poverty. Instead, they became centers of crime, drugs, and despair, due to poor design, overcrowding, and neglect.
Winnipeg’s Central Village (Canada): Similarly, when funding ran out, buildings were poorly constructed. Residents were mostly those with no other options, and the area deteriorated into crime and prostitution.

These show that housing cannot be purely functional; social and psychological needs must also be considered.

Successful Models

Villa Verde, Chile: Designed by architect Alejandro Aravena. Families bought “half-houses”—a small, affordable unit with space deliberately left unfinished so owners could expand later. This flexibility gave residents ownership, pride, and dignity. The project fostered thriving communities rather than decay.
Early Soviet communal housing (e.g., Moscow’s Narkomfin Building): Though politically charged, these projects experimented with efficient living spaces, shared kitchens, and community facilities—innovative ideas still studied today.

What Makes a Home?

Together with my project partner, we asked a simple but profound question: what truly makes a house feel like a home?

We conducted surveys:

Asked people to send photos of the spaces they loved most in their homes, and the spaces they disliked most.
Results showed surprising patterns:
- People cherished clean, social spaces—living rooms, dining tables, places of gathering.
- People disliked corridors, doorways, and transitional spaces, which felt impersonal or oppressive.
- Laundry rooms and bathrooms were often cited as unpleasant, unless well-designed.

This showed that beyond shelter, a home is defined by how it supports connection, light, cleanliness, and comfort.

Human Evolution and Design

We also reflected on how design interacts with human biology and evolution. Daniel Lieberman, in The Story of the Human Body, argues that humans evolved to run long distances in hot climates. Similarly, we evolved to move, to live communally, and to spend time in natural light.

Yet modern housing often isolates, encourages sitting, and blocks natural sunlight. Could design re-align homes with our evolutionary needs?

Our Conceptual Design

We envisioned a multi-level communal housing model with three layers of spaces:

Private units – for individuals or small families.
Communal spaces – for shared meals, conversations, and activities.
Neighborhood/community areas – fostering interaction between families.

Key Features

Central Round Table: Inspired by Central Asian traditions, a floor-level dining table requiring people to sit and rise, encouraging movement.
Large Windows: Maximizing natural light and Vitamin D.
Expandable Units: Small, affordable starter units that could be expanded as families grew.
Hierarchy of Spaces: Private rooms balanced with shared community zones.
Health-oriented Design: Subtle nudges toward activity, daylight, and socialization.

Reflections and Trends

Five years later, I still see the same principles resurfacing in global design discussions:

Co-living communities
Flexible, expandable housing
Integration of wellness into everyday living
Communal resource-sharing

Perhaps our project wasn’t just an academic exercise—it anticipated real, ongoing shifts in how people imagine the homes of the future.

Conclusion

Design is never only about objects or buildings—it is about people. Housing is not just walls and roofs, but dignity, purpose, and community. If the future truly brings a “useless class” as Harari suggests, then design will play a crucial role in ensuring that people remain not useless, but meaningful contributors to society through creativity, community, and care.

That is the challenge—and opportunity—for design in the 21st century.