Comment on But think of the landlords!
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
I don’t see this as left or right wing
This is architecture that could be done better.
Yes, we need to stop homelessness, but you also want to avoid creating spaces where nobody wants to live because it’s ugly and depressing and guaranteed, the poor end up having to live there, and with that comes crime and what not and you end up with ghetto style areas where even police is uneasy
Take a little bit more space, put a little bit more thought into the designs, add spaces for children to play, add parks, make it look nice. Wr don’t need luxury villas either, but there has to be something better than this
where nobody wants to live because it’s ugly and depressing and guaranteed, the poor end up having to live there, and with that comes crime and what not and you end up with ghetto style areas where even police is uneasy
you should not give lectures about something you know from bad tv show at best.
what a suprise, these communities look according to how you maintain them and people who live there are happy to have a place to live. and when it undergoes revitalization, it looks quite nice.
But they aren’t wrong either. Some places with these type of buildings have been build wrong. Like in the Netherlands in the 60’s they build an entire new neighborhood that had only these mega modernists apartment buildings that followed Le Corbusier futuristic vision. And nobody wanted to live there, because other neighborhoods with history were much more pleasant to live in. So eventually only the poor and desperate moved into the neighborhood. And the neighborhood turned into a rundown ghetto. Today almost every of those 1960’s apartment buildings in that neighborhood has been torn down. Was much cheaper to rebuild from the ground up than the renovate. Same is true in many suburbs of Paris.
So eventually only the poor and desperate moved into the neighborhood. And the neighborhood turned into a rundown ghetto
Sounds like the problem is wealth inequality and poverty, not housing itself. There were no ghettos in the eastern block, period.
It was built cheap and efficiently, not to please the eye. It could certainly be better, and we know that our environ plays a bigger role in our outlooks than we did before. If they built it today, it would have a few more trees and green spaces but would maintain it’s very essence, which is a large domicile to house people for cheap.
Also correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t a lot of these have murals and shit painted on them back in the day. Could’ve sworn I’ve heard about these building having their outer paint stripped only to reveal a mural or mosaic.
because it’s ugly and depressing
Speak for yourself, this is much more beautiful and less depressing to me than cookie-mold single-family sprawling housing in the US. You’re just cherrypicking a bad picture in winter with dead trees.
the poor end up having to live there and with that comes crime and what not and you end up with ghetto style areas
This did NOT happen in the eastern block. Housing was guaranteed but so was work. Crime is mostly a consequence of lack of job prospects enforced on marginalized people, and when you give everyone an education and a fair chance, the vast majority of people gladly accept that. There were no “criminal ghettos” in the Eastern Block. You’re just applying the capitalist logic to countries that weren’t capitalist. When you don’t segregate people by wealth (rich vs poor neighborhood) you eliminate the possibility for ghettos to exist.
ObviouslyNotBanana@piefed.world 2 days ago
In my country this type of building came about in a society where many lived in wood sheds without electricity or running water. Where people shared outhouses with their neighbors in the yard of actual residential buildings.
The architecture of the time homed huge amounts of people with running water, indoor toilets and electricity. Indoor heat without needing a fire.
I appreciate them immensely.
noobdoomguy8658@feddit.org 1 day ago
You’re forgetting the public transport availability, walkability, and facilities being part of the planning, i.e. the design was to include kindergartens, schools, hospitals, shops, etc., all not too far away to access on foot or a short commute that is regular and predictable and also easy to get to. Admittedly, it didn’t always happen, but still resulted in more liveable cities and areas than many of the new neighborhoods being built today in the same cities.