It's interesting that in this day of isolating personal electronic devices (are these kids capable of relating in real life?), these immersions in shared space would have any appeal whatsoever. Go figure.

Not for me. But basically, yes, as the article quotes: Hostels.

Re: "isolating personal electronic devices" ... I don't think the devices themselves are "isolating." The devices that give people more alternatives and more efficient means to interact with other people in whom they have interests. (E.g., it's way easier for me to interact with you by making a post here at any time that is convenient for me than for me to wait until a time I think my neighbor will be at home and would not mine talking to me and then walk over, exposing myself to the elements in the mean time, to talk to said neighbor.)

So the one interviewee in the article nailed it by saying: "What does matter is if I'm in the right place and surrounded by the right people and if it is efficient."

"Right people" -- often times that means "people like you", in similar stage of life (e.g., "young single professional"), may be share similar aspiration (e.g., "establish a career" or "build a startup"), talk similar language (e.g., latest tech and business trends). You're more likely to find that in the "co-living" hostel thingy described in the article than in just about any neighborhood where you buy or rent a place to live.

"Efficient" -- Viewing "efficiency" as some sort of benefit/cost quotient, the denominator easily dominates for most sorts of "benefits" in this sort of consideration. So it's easy to see the "co-living" hostel thingy to be more "efficient" than buying/renting.