Right wing architecture
But think of the landlords!
Submitted 1 day ago by ObviouslyNotBanana@piefed.world to [deleted]
https://media.piefed.world/posts/wK/gR/wKgRsgB27fHQOAZ.png
Comments
slaacaa@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
captain_oni@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 hours ago
Glide@lemmy.ca 21 hours ago
I fuckinf hate stroads.
Taldan@lemmy.world 20 hours 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
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 17 hours ago
That is a lot of gas stations and signs for them
slaacaa@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Free market 🇺🇸🦅🙏
Armand1@lemmy.world 1 day 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.
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.
yucandu@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
No comrade, nice looking things are bourgeoisie decadence.
Aljernon@lemmy.today 4 hours 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.
ObviouslyNotBanana@piefed.world 3 hours ago
Most of the issues with this era of housing projects stems from the fact that the plans for upkeep were abandoned. Most of the buildings themselves were solid and very modern and with the right maintenance they would’ve been in much better condition than they are now.
The buildings that have received that care and attention still look great. Not all the areas were well planned but most of the time they’re fine.
And that’s without constraining that judgement to Russia specifically. Many of the countries that built like this were very ambitious but the ambition faltered with time as the resources allocated to maintenance were used for other things.
Rooty@lemmy.world 1 day ago
They’re called commieblocks if they’re affordable to the average person. If not, they’re “highrise apartments”
tomiant@piefed.social 1 day 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.
Slotos@feddit.nl 1 day 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.
Allero@lemmy.today 1 day 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
saltesc@lemmy.world 1 day 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.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This, but unironically. People suck, give me distance. I’ll let the lawn die.
ObviouslyNotBanana@piefed.world 1 day 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.
SigmarStern@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
High rise apartments in Seoul Meanwhile in famously communist South Korea…
ObviouslyNotBanana@piefed.world 23 hours ago
Ah, the beauties of capitalism.
SigmarStern@discuss.tchncs.de 22 hours 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.
Siegfried@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
South korea is speedrunning into a scify dystopia
REDACTED@infosec.pub 5 hours ago
Ahh yes, the famous left wing authoritarian centric planning government Soviet Russia
kurikai@lemmy.world 1 day ago
take notice of your capitalist car park next time you go to big box centre. more depressing than housing
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day 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.
Imagewizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 hours ago
Toss some rooftop park/garden/green spaces up there as well and they’d be pretty damn great, as far as skyscrapers go.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 hours 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.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 20 hours 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?
asret@lemmy.zip 21 hours 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.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 20 hours 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.
Taldan@lemmy.world 20 hours 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
SealofLove@leminal.space 20 hours 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.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 19 hours 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
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 50 minutes 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.
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 13 minutes 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.
ObviouslyNotBanana@piefed.world 19 hours 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.
AlexLost@lemmy.world 17 hours 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.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 17 hours 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.
JackBinimbul@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 hours ago
How the hell is this “left wing architecture”?? Apartment buildings have looked like this all around the world for at least 50 years.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Any housing that isn’t exclusively for billionaires is ‘left wing’.
PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 19 hours 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.
FishFace@piefed.social 15 hours ago
It’s “left wing” because the buildings are identical, because they were built through central planning.
RidderSport@feddit.org 1 day 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.
Flauschige_Lemmata@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Photographing them in summer also helps
renzhexiangjiao@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 day 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
tomiant@piefed.social 1 day 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.
asret@lemmy.zip 21 hours 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.
galaxy_nova@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
500k? Dang that’s a bargain!
nexguy@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
slaacaa@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 hours ago
Looks like concept art from Anno 2070… And I don’t mean that in a good way.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
As someone who loves watching megaprojects, it is so sad that it is mostly a right wing vanity thing.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Who could’ve guessed, low-cost housing doesn’t look fancy!
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 20 hours 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.
Daerun@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
This litterally looks like any neighbourhood build in Spain in the 60s.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
Hey if you need a lot of housing real quick utilitarian designs like this tend to come about, doesn’t really matter who is doing it. Hell the Romans had some prefab designs that had a passing resemblance to this.
AniZaeger@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Except that if the Romans actually built high-rises, the damned things would probably still be standing.
karashta@piefed.social 21 hours ago
I hate our society’s fixation with ugly utilitarianism. We could be making beautiful things for all of us
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
They’re too hard to regulate. Grey square boxes are good for the poor! You’ll see! Trust us. We’re totally not stupid
MasterNerd@lemmy.zip 18 hours 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
TurboToad@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Yes, additionally utilitarian architecture like this can easily painted in lively colors to make it look nicer. Imo this also would make a big difference with minimal costs
DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 hours ago
Has anyone seen the cat?
BillyClark@piefed.social 1 day 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.
gens@programming.dev 1 day ago
This is historically because urbanization. It may look to you because sexism or whatever, but that’s because you see sexism everywhere.
jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Are you saying the USSR did not educate their women? (As a means to further population growth?)
criss_cross@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
I actually wish they’d build more of those than the overpriced “luxury condos” people build now that no one can afford.
turdas@suppo.fi 1 day 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.
SuluBeddu@feddit.it 20 hours 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?
chaosppe@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
lists one way of doing a thing “This is the only way of doing that thing!!”
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 1 day ago
homelessness
Data centers, that empty parking lot outside the abandoned mall, deportation camps…
JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 19 hours 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.
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Funny enough, despite the ugly aesthetics, there is a great sense of community in social housing.
Quokka@quokk.au 1 day ago
American suburbia.
Dayroom7485@lemmy.world 3 hours 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
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 hour 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.