But think of the landlords!

Comments

• slaacaa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Right wing architecture

  Image

  source

  • captain_oni@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    More right wing architecture

    Image

    source

    • Sunflier@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Just one more lane!

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • echodot@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      That’s terrible. Use the nide grabber and put that right. Wobbling all over the place right now.

      source
  • Glide@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I fuckinf hate stroads.

    source
  • Taldan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I hate it. Feels so restricting. Cant go anywhere without driving, and evenbdriving a block is a huge pain in the ass because of all the traffic and traffic control

    source
  • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    That is a lot of gas stations and signs for them

    source

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Free market 🇺🇸🦅🙏

      source
• Armand1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Social housing typically doesn’t look as good as high-end apartments, but it doesn’t have to look terrible. Here’s some pretty neat looking social housing in south Paris.

  Image

  Image

  Image

  It’s kind of the China Town of Paris.

  It’s right next to an accessible tram station, has green spaces and social areas spread around, a couple of malls with great independent restaurants right next door. There are cycle lanes all around the place.

  If you’re curious, here it is on Google Maps

  I’d live here. I only wish there were more neighbourhoods like this.

  source

  • yucandu@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    No comrade, nice looking things are bourgeoisie decadence.

    source
  • Riverside@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Well, those have been built in a highly industrialized and rich country, not in a developing economy. Social housing in China nowadays looks more like your pictures than the one in the post, let’s keep in mind that that kind of housing is at this point over 50 years old.

    source

    • Armand1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yeah, that’s why I’d like them to build more social housing.

      The lifecycle of social housing projects like these, as I understand them, is meant to be that you continue to build them, and as the old ones reach the end of their lifetime (around 60 years?) you demolish them and move the people into the new ones.

      In practice, most places are not continuously building them as they should, so many of them are reaching the end of their lives without a plan for where to move people afterwards. This shows a lack of foresight and long-term planning.

      Of course, politics are a fickle thing so the latest government can choose to decide that actually, poor people should be punished for the failures of the system and long-term initiatives fail.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Rooty@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  They’re called commieblocks if they’re affordable to the average person. If not, they’re “highrise apartments”

  source

  • tomiant@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    drab concrete boxes with apartments that have bizzare floorplans and seem to be built for money laundering purposes.

    I am so happy I’m not alone seeing it. Modern “development” is such a massive scam, in every country it seems like. It’s the new equivalent of logging or mining barons- they buy up land, build shit on it, sell it overpriced, wash their hands and move on to the next project with little regard for long term urban city planning.

    source

    • Slotos@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Soviet development that was driven purely by economic considerations tends to have all the issues of modern development. Well, except car centric planning, but we know why that wasn’t a consideration ever.

      Apartment complexes that didn’t focus just on economy, tended to be way better. And that is missing from modern considerations almost always.

      Still, there’s a reason pre-Soviet areas to this day remain some of the most sought out ones.

      source
• Allero@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Also part of why it looks depressing is because it’s old and poorly maintained.

  Just a touch of renovation and the houses start looking way better: 1000103747 1000103748

  source

  • saltesc@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Ugh. Disgusting.

    Give me a single structure on a plot of land, 10ft from my neighbours walls, and a lawn to maintain, any day I live for the additional costs on the place I never spend the best hours of my day in. Worth every gallon of commute fuel. My brain is so aerodynamic.

    source

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      This, but unironically. People suck, give me distance. I’ll let the lawn die.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • ObviouslyNotBanana@piefed.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Yep, my building hasn’t had a good amount of care in a while but the one right next to it has recently and it looks just fine.

    source
• SigmarStern@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  High rise apartments in Seoul Meanwhile in famously communist South Korea…

  source

  • ObviouslyNotBanana@piefed.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Ah, the beauties of capitalism.

    source

    • SigmarStern@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Stayed in an probably illegal Airbnb in a Samsung apartment in Jeju 10 years ago. It was nice. Apartment complexes are not bad. We have to them in beautiful Switzerland too. If the building is well maintained and the surrounding is full of greenery, and local shops, and entertainment, then they are a valid option and I’d prefer them over sprawl and cul-de-sacs.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Siegfried@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    South korea is speedrunning into a scify dystopia

    source
• kurikai@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  take notice of your capitalist car park next time you go to big box centre. more depressing than housing

  source
• irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Copying and pasting an old comment i made:

  Honestly, commieblocks arent that bad. Most of the pictures of them are cherry picked to be the unmaintained, dirty ones, and are exclusively taken in gloomy weather. The houses on the inside are usually good quality as well (though likely not well maintained anymore).

  Hell, if you just painted them colourfully, they’d look nice.
  Image

  source

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Toss some rooftop park/garden/green spaces up there as well and they’d be pretty damn great, as far as skyscrapers go.

    source

    • irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      The blocks usually have a lot of green areas (that’s why most of the pictures are from winter, they look gloomier). They were designed to be lived in.

      source
    • asret@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Looks like the ones in the picture are already surrounded by green spaces - they’re probably already pretty great as far as skyscrapers go.

      source
    • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Dumb question, I know some places where they build quick and ugly and a few decades later they just remodelled the façade to make it pretty an modern. but those are small residential buildings in places where I lived. do you know of places where that happened in large projects like the picture?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    And that is just the façade, some places renew the façade every few decades to keep the place fresh and desirable.

    the benefits of high density urban design are also amazing and I assume I do not need to list them here. this is lemmy and I just need to wait for the appropriate autist to list them all.

    And how is it controversial to build housing for everyone, instead of some pretty houses for those who can afford it.

    source
  • Taldan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    These blocks look very different as a person on the street. They mostly only look bad from above where you can see all of them together

    We have some burtalist apartment buildings in Minneapolis. They’re generally desirable apartments

    source
  • SealofLove@leminal.space ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Nah man. I lived in Russia most of my life and commie blocks are as depressing as they look on those pictures. You have a point that some are poorly maintained, but that’s not some, that’s most of the country. Just a mass of featureless grey blocks. Dirty, ugly and inescapable. About them being good quality on the inside is debatable. The flats are small and I could hear my neighbors all the time. Some of them used to be painted, but the paint is peeling off, only hylighting the ugliness. There’s very little upside to them in the modern world.

    source

    • Allero@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I live in Russia nearly all my life, and I can tell it really is a matter of proper maintancnce. Many cities do a very poor job keeping these buildings in a good shape, but when they do, it looks fairly good.

      Not to mention European neighbors where they are still common, but due maintenance makes them look actually good.

      The sound issues are fair, but there are ways to limit them.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• RidderSport@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  When the coops that own and manage these houses hire creative architects for renovation, you can these buildings to be much less bleak looking. They mostly miss coloured paint. The gray plaster they used is what makes them look shit.

  Otherwise these buildings often have quite clever design in regards to natural light for all flats as well as relative quietness even when next to busy roads.

  source

  • Flauschige_Lemmata@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Photographing them in summer also helps

    source
• renzhexiangjiao@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  this is more to do with it being in moscow and built some 50 years ago, not with it being “left-wing” (whatever that means). Social housing around the world can look much better than this

  source

  • tomiant@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Also seriously who gives a shit about how it looks, it’s a place to live. I’ll take one of those apartments please, I can’t afford to buy a fucking condo for $500K, and that’s all they build now because that’s what makes them most money. So tired of this bullshit.

    source

    • asret@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Looks matter because it’s a place to live. Many commieblocks deal with that just fine by having the green space around them though. I kind of like the look of some of them though - solid, practical, maintainable. Some of the modern builds in my local city look more like temporary emergency shelters - like the people staying there don’t belong.

      source
    • galaxy_nova@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      500k? Dang that’s a bargain!

      source
• phoenixz@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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

  source

  • ObviouslyNotBanana@piefed.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.

    source

    • noobdoomguy8658@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.

      source
  • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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.

    Image

    Image

    source

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • AlexLost@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      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.

      source
  • Riverside@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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.

    source
• JackBinimbul@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  How the hell is this “left wing architecture”?? Apartment buildings have looked like this all around the world for at least 50 years.

  source

  • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Any housing that isn’t exclusively for billionaires is ‘left wing’.

    source
  • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s left-wing in that it provides cheap housing for many. It also looks very brutalist and is reminiscent of USSR housing blocks.

    source
  • FishFace@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s “left wing” because the buildings are identical, because they were built through central planning.

    source
• nexguy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The only thing more depressing than left wing architecture is right wing architectureImage

  source

  • slaacaa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Image

    source

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Looks like concept art from Anno 2070… And I don’t mean that in a good way.

      source
  • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    As someone who loves watching megaprojects, it is so sad that it is mostly a right wing vanity thing.

    source
• Matriks404@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Wtf is a left wing architecture.

  The shit far right comes up with sometimes melts my brain.

  source

  • Riverside@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Architecture is political. The architectural styles of the Eastern Block had their reason of being. The usage of prefab and panels in construction was an ideological idea, because the intention was to house as many people in cities as possible during the extremely rapid industrialization that took place.

    source
• Dayroom7485@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  A spot in one of those in Berlin costs 650.000€ because of how great the non-communist economy is doing at creating affordable housing. That is 14 times for median salary before taxes, or 21 times after taxes. www.immobilienscout24.de/expose/165160850

  source

  • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    in prague, it is 2 monthly median salaries per squared meter. there was a lot wrong about the fucking “communism”, but accessible housing was not one of them.

    source
• BillyClark@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I’m not sure what “left wing architecture” means. Because, to me, this looks like the sort of thing you have to do when the population grows like crazy. Those tend to be areas where women have little education and little power.

  source

  • gens@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    This is historically because urbanization. It may look to you because sexism or whatever, but that’s because you see sexism everywhere.

    source
  • jaybone@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Are you saying the USSR did not educate their women? (As a means to further population growth?)

    source
  • Riverside@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Those tend to be areas where women have little education

    By the 1960s, the USSR had more women engineers than the rest of the planet combined, and some 45% of the PhDs in chemistry in the 1970s were awarded to women. Mistakes were made in the USSR, for sure, but equal access to education between women and men was not one of them.

    source
• turdas@suppo.fi ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Lots of trees there. That place still looks pretty nice in the summer.

  A quick web search had someone say it’s Yaroslavsky District, Moscow and while I’m not entirely convinced (having trouble matching the photo to a map), in the summer it will probably look similar to the photo of Yaroslavsky District on Wikipedia.

  source
• Aljernon@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I’ve seen this posted before. Important points to consider: Imperial Russia had a housing shortage in the cities due to industrialization occurring and the existing housing was often of poor quality. According to one source: “In major cities, a significant portion of housing consisted of barracks, basements, semi-basements, dormitory-style rooms, dugouts, and semi-dugouts.”

  Then WW1 hit followed by the civil war and housing construction essentially stopped with some housing destroyed in the war. Then in the interwar period, priority was given to industrial construction in the USSR, resulting in low housing construction volumes, with a significant share consisting of temporary housing. Rapid industrialization and increasing population shifts to cities increasing demand. Then WW2 hit and huge amounts of existing housing were destroyed in the fighting.

  So the USSR was in tight spot and did the best they could with limited time and resources which for most Russians ended up being a huge improvement.

  source
• Droggelbecher@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Semi relatedly, there’s some new blocks in my city that are both ugly and expensive to live in. It’s this soulless, almost corporate feeling type of architecture. Doesn’t fit into how the city looks at all. They had the opportunity to decide whether to build affordable housing or something pretty that aesthetically fits into the city and picked neither. No doubt the shareholders shed a tear of joy.

  source
• karashta@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I hate our society’s fixation with ugly utilitarianism. We could be making beautiful things for all of us

  source
• Daerun@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  This litterally looks like any neighbourhood build in Spain in the 60s.

  source
• krull_krull@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Just paint them some color bruh. It would do wonder.

  source
• MasterNerd@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  One interesting thing I’m noting is that picture appears to have been taken on a rather dreary winter day. I can see a lot of trees between the buildings, and I’d be interested in seeing what this place looks like in other seasons and better weather

  source
• CosmoNova@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  homelessness

  Data centers, that empty parking lot outside the abandoned mall, deportation camps…

  source
• SuluBeddu@feddit.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  On the picture: hundreds of flats with individual windows and balcony

  Oh no, giving hundreds of families a balcony, how terribile! What’s next: non-shared bathrooms and kitchens?

  source
• criss_cross@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I actually wish they’d build more of those than the overpriced “luxury condos” people build now that no one can afford.

  source
• ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Who could’ve guessed, low-cost housing doesn’t look fancy!

  source
• TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Funny enough, despite the ugly aesthetics, there is a great sense of community in social housing.

  source
• Quokka@quokk.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  American suburbia.

  source
• JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Those blocks might be not perfect, but they were part of a program to build housing for all those people living in quite bad conditions after the war and after everything that went through in eastern europe in the 20th century. They needed millions of homes and quick. And they might be ugly to some people, but they are better than slums and you shouldn’t take their condition today after several decades for what they were when they were new.

  source
• REDACTED@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Ahh yes, the famous left wing authoritarian centric planning government Soviet Russia

  source