I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion. So the facilities are not there. That doesn't prove anything. One time, there were only mainframes, and "home computers sadly didn't work".
I'd like to see some innovation by architects, for stuffless living. Since almost all of my personal things fit into a computer in the future, living space could be a lot more generic.
Maybe one could invent a small "personal container" with all the stuff, that can easily be transported around. The generic housing could have slots for the personal container.
Why do you have to have skis, surfboard, bike and kites just for you all the time? It's not like you can use them all at once, is it?
Maybe I would understand if you used one item per day, but I don't think even that's the case. Probably most of the stuff you mentioned is simply lying around 90% of the time, taking space and amortizing.
If you own skis (or any of the other items), you don't just own some skis; you own those skis. They're sized to you, you've used them the last 100 times you went down a mountain, you're accustomed to exactly how they handle, and the left ski boot's padding is a little more spacious because your left foot is a little bigger, and has worn away the padding more.
Yes, you don't use them, but between the custom fitting and the emotional attachment, they aren't fungible anymore. Which is, I suppose, the point of the article: if you declare something to be freely exchangeable, then you can have a much more freewheeling style of life.
I'd like to see some innovation by architects, for stuffless living. Since almost all of my personal things fit into a computer in the future, living space could be a lot more generic.