Which is why I'm an anarchist. Pretty much every other system would force me to attempt to be happy in an apartment block, or waste huge amounts of resources creating suburbs that are still too goddamn crowded for me
I would like to share your attitude but fear the consequences when millions seek a place in the wilderness. What do you do when you arrive and your neighbor asks you to move on because he wants to be more alone?
I want to be more alone too, so I'd probably not get to the point where I was close enough to have them tell me to go away.
However, most people probably wouldn't like the actual wilderness. They want a big country house somewhere and when they find out they need to build it themselves they'll go back to the apartment blocks.
One reason I'm a fan of making cities less objectively terrible is that more people will live in them and be even further away from my hovel.
If everyone thought like this, everyone would have a home.
And 50 or so people would own all of the rest of the land and do nothing with it because we’re too fucking stupid to realize that a system that wants us all to live in 50m² micro apartments is a load of shit, and strung together by a greedy few.
There is enough land for us all to live comfortably, but a fraction of a percent don’t want anyone to use most of the land for anything useful so hey let’s just give up and take almost-squalor because at least it not squalor!
“Land-usage” is such a narrow-minded way to think about the implicit wants and needs of society. You sound like you’ve never been to actual cities, or never got your head far enough out of your arse to actually experience one.
North American suburban sprawl already proves that “enough land for us all to live comfortably” is a terrible way to live sociable lives and drains the economy due to massive swathes of those lands being used for roads and the maintenance of said roads.
I implore you to take a trip to almost any European city, and see for yourself what actual “comfortable living” for most people looks like.
I’ve lived in cities my whole life, which paints a pretty broad picture of you doesn’t it? Couldn’t even get the premise of your own bullshit comment right.
You make dense housing like these apartments because it is the most practical way to house everybody quickly. Once you take care of the immediate problem, homelessness, you can continue to expand and build nicer, bigger housing for everyone.
What’s more important, that we have enough resources to house everyone, but there are still people forced to live on the streets or the fact that you don’t like the inconvenience of living in an apartment because it’s too small for you even in the short term? Guess that makes you one of the greedy few that can’t see past their own problems to think of their community.
I’m for that. Hell, I would just like small tiny home communities without state government trying to restrict it. Block apartments are fine for many people (newly graduated, small families, and independent elders).
Nonono, it’s unreasonable for taxes to go toward helping the poor. They live on the street and starve by their own choice. No one wants to pay for those wretched people!
Where are the police when you need them to quickly usher the inconvenient truth of my selfish lifestyle out of my sight?
You’re in lemmy.ml, a Marxist instance, reading a meme criticizing capitalism and saying that Soviet apartment buildings are a stretch?
No, they’re the whole point of the meme. Paying for them is the point, who paid for the Soviet buildings? The message is that the Soviet Union built these and American capitalists allow people to live in tents on the street (while calling those buildings ugly). Housing projects would be a perfect “yeah but” except they are very low priority and not so common.
Ugly Soviet buildings are themselves a meme. Up there with the hammer and sickle and the color beige when Americans visualize the Soviet Union.
It’s also forgetting that a significant portion of homeless people are homeless by choice, or are homeless for reasons that just providing housing won’t resolve.
People have this idea that all homeless people are just regular people who experienced hard times, but that’s just a minority. Most homeless are mentally ill people who won’t take their meds or drug addicts who aren’t willing to quit.
It sucks, and they shouldn’t have to live on the streets, but you can’t force people to change.
I don’t think people have that idea at all, if anything they are more likely to assume a homeless person is mentally ill and drug addicted than they are to think they are experiencing hard times or employed but unable to pay for housing.
However housing first has been pretty successful, but goes against many people’s values for some reason. The big fear of someone getting something undeserved is strong.
I believe you are arguing in good faith, so I’m hoping you can provide a source for your claim that the majority suffer from mental illness or drug addiction.
Yeah that can’t be right… The problem with these discussions I think is there’s a very big difference between the technical definition of homeless, and the one people use colloquially.
It’s the most visible minority of homeless people that tend to be the entrenched ones people think of when they think of homelessness, and those people essentially have nothing in common with the other “homeless” people other than having no permanent home. It makes the discussion harder as people are using the same word but talking about different things.
Yeah, liberals and conservatives only differ on whether gay people should be put to death, so you’re not really saying much. And being liberal does not, whatsoever, make you immune to conservative propaganda. We live in a capitalist society, founded on liberal values: whether conservatives know it or not, it is liberal values they are conserving.
Also, as I’ve said about 5 times now, no one is saying that building houses alone will solve the issue. So stop beating that strawman.
You’re more than welcome to look up statistics. ~60% of the chronicly homeless have life long mental health issues, and ~80% have substance abuse issues.
Pretty much every city/state has resources to help the homeless, but the homeless have to be willing to accept the help. Most shelters are drug free, so addicts don’t want to stay there and they won’t accept people whose mental illness makes them violent.
You can’t force a person to take their medicine or stop doing drugs unless you want to start building more prisons.
Again, I was never saying that all homelessness is a choice, but a lot of people choose not to accept the help that’s available.
Source: My wife has her masters in the field and used to work with these populations as an addiction counselor, in Texas, so I know that resources exist at a state level even in a state that clearly hates it’s citizens.
Neoliberals never seem to get around to actually address what’s being said. They just hem and haw about why they can’t do anything about it, as they pull their SUVs into the third stall in their garage.
I’ve certainly noticed the change. There are some posts lately that are indistinguishable from those on alt-right breeding grounds like 4chan and reddit. That’s why I wasn’t too gung-ho about persuading people to join Lemmy – there were a lot of people on reddit I was hoping wouldn’t come.
I’ve started using raddle more, which comes with its own problems, but at least I don’t have to start by convincing people not to hate marginalized groups every time I open my inbox.
Raddle is a site similar to reddit, but it’s run by anarchists (anarcho-primitivists to be specific, but I’ve never felt unwelcome as an anarcho-communist)
Of course people would rather homeless people have housing instead of living in tent cities everywhere. But they also don’t have any desire to pay for it when it comes time to do something and of course make moral arguments against the homeless.
These are two different groups of people
The first, who are on board with state housing projects, are the common people who still have empathy for their fellow people
The second, who are totally on board with homelessness because the housing projects are “too expensive”, belong to the political and economic elite
Most people aren’t pieces of shit and don’t want people to be homeless, but then they’re unwilling to do anything to solve it because it requires money and effort.
Dishonest framing. The average worker has nothing to do with this issue. They are not the people we’re asking to solve this. Like I already said, it’s the political and economic elite. Capitalists. The state. Where is the worker’s money supposed to be sent? On what is their effort to be put?
We also have internalized that a lot of homeless people “did something wrong” to get there, which doesn’t help.
Yep, neoliberal chuds, as I said
You’re trying to oversimplify a complex cultural issue
How? What variables have I abstracted into a black box, here? What few mechanisms have I reduced the issue to? To me, “people want affordable housing but don’t wanna pay for it” sounds extremely oversimplified.
I have no idea why you’re picking an argument with someone who probably largely agrees with you.
I’m not “picking an argument with you” lol. I’m just correcting what I see as a defeatist, “what can we even do” attitude.
That’s not what cognitive dissonance means. It’s a question of willpower/desire to actually help. No one wants people to be homeless but they also aren’t willing to do anything about it. That’s not cognitive dissonance.
Sounds like semantic fudging to me. “These people need homes! No, stop building homes, it’s too expensive!!” sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.
That’s just a cop out. Of course it’s complex. No reason to just throw your hands in the air and say “it’s too hard, let’s just leave it to the market”. We already tried that. It led to this.
Also, no one is saying, literally, “building more houses will fix homelessness alone, nothing else needed, DURRR”. That’s just a strawman.
What we also need is a complete end to landlording. But this of course won’t happen under the current system, because capitalism fucking worships private property.
The entire post is about low income housing as a solution to people sleeping in tents. Building more apartments won’t stop people from living in tents.
Pointing out that it’s a complex issue that isn’t solved by more houses is pretty much the opposite of a strawman
No, that is not the point it’s making. It’s making the point that neoliberal chuds would prefer to see homeless people than affordable housing. It doesn’t say that building housing itself is the sole solution. Hell, it doesn’t say anything at all about building. We don’t see any construction in that picture, the blocks are just there. You could read it as saying that already built flats should just be given to people.
The top is meant to represent the socialist solution to homelessness. These are socialist block apartments built to ensure that everyone had housing because homelessness was a huge problem. They were functional, but because they were built to functionally address a need quickly, they weren’t large or luxurious. They were built to last and the rent levels were controlled at a low rate if the people didn’t outright own the place themselves.
The bottom picture is the liberal solution to homelessness. Apartments suck, fuck the homeless, jack up the rent prices. The convenience of the few is prioritized over the needs of the many.
Funny how someone who is mentally 12 could put this together, but you couldn’t be bothered.
It’s only stupid if you don’t address the root causes of the problems that you are listing. If you don’t do anything to lift the people out of their desperation and end the cause of that desperation, then of course they will sell it.
Your middle paragraph is the first part of what I’m talking about, do what is needed to help people lift themselves back up. Only a small part of that is helping with housing. The bigger problem is the second part, if you do nothing about the conditions that contributed to their downward spiral, then that first part will only be a temporary relief.
This second comment made it much more clear that you weren’t just saying, “nah, fuck them,” but covering all of the nuances of what needs to change just isn’t a realistic expectation for text comments online. Frankly, I have a feeling you and I agree a lot on that first part of what is needed to help people, no clue about how you feel about the second part. I appreciate you coming back with a thoughtful answer instead of trolling, because I expect trolling.
It assumes you can recognize Soviet housing block, designed to quickly house as many people as possible. It has nothing to do with a preference for houses over apartments.
If you look through the rest of the photos in the source article, ask if living like they do is worse than homeless in a tent.
I think what they’re trying to say in thr meme is that the building is government funded. In the US, we also a made some government funded buildings, “projects” but it did not go very well (combination of bad optics, and supposedly bad funding) . So the US basically said fuck public funding for housing, the free market will fix everything. And instead of the “ugly” buildings that Russia has (the idea pushed onto Americans) , we ended up with a large number of unhoused people because of spiraling out of control housing costs
The US uses vouchers, but they are underfunded (years long wait lists) and not accepted in many places. Some of the places that do accept them have similar issues to housing projects.
Depending on how one defines homelessness, China has either a very tiny homeless population or an extremely large one. Compared to other countries, there very few vagrants: people living on the streets of China’s cities without means of support. But if one counts the people who migrated to cities without a legal permit (hukou), work as day laborers without job security or a company dormitory, and live in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions on the edge of cities, there are nearly 300 million homeless
I wonder who is doing this voting? Oh, it’s people who live in the areas we can’t afford to live in. And capitalists add lobbying power to those voters selfish interests.
Go to/watch any planning or proposal meeting and watch the pearl clutching and nimbyism. I think you know this but you want to demand “studies” instead of engaging in good faith.
In the United States at least, your local government’s public hearings for new housing developments kinda begs to differ.
People will demand the homeless be eliminated from their area while simultaneously opposing development of housing or shelters for the homeless in their area.
So maybe you’re right though: they don’t hate the apartments more, they simply can’t make up their mind on which they hate more.
I think it’s more so that people don’t want an apartment complex built in their backyard, not that they are opposed to them being built in an area where there is proper infrastructure
Well there’s considerable difference between an apartment complex in a suburb not designed for heavy traffic and less developed areas where there’s room for expansion for infrastructure.
We can’t expand roads in my area, either for an extra lane (which I know is a sin) or for buses because it would be right up on houses at that point.
However, just a few miles down the road on the main drag, there’s undeveloped land that would be perfect. Build it there.
When I say “backyard” I mean literally in your backyard. Instead of name calling and downvoting, have a fucking conversation and ask in a respectful manner what somebody means. Stop being a douche because you automatically assume somebody who thinks slightly differently than you is wrong.
I wasn’t being mean spirited with my original comment, it was a legitimate question. Whenever I hear people say something like “I don’t want that!” I like to find out why. It’s just curiosity. Sorry if it came across mean.
Well articulated. I’m not from the US, but I’ve seen housing developments go sideways when they built four 10-story blocks (not in somebody’s back yard, but in an area without proper infrastructure) and after 1000ish people had moved in there were 1 hour long queues just to get out of the complex because there was only one road with one lane per direction. And the only bus stop was not really reliable.
This was not built in the middle of the city because of land availability (and huge prices even if there was land available - you’re near the metro and tram and a bus stop? pay 50% more. oh, you’re near a park too? pay 50% more on top of that). Should we just tear down old buildings in low density areas in the city to make room for big blocks? Some might be worth tearing down because of age and overall condition, but good luck getting people to move out.
I agree but want to say everyone jumps to homeless. There are a ton of normal people that are suffering from high rent, lack of options, etc. We need to think about way more than homeless.
Most people think homeless as jobless, etc. But when we have people with entirely ok jobs that can’t afford rent (see people living in their cars), addressing basic normal housing addresses both for a startling amount.
Aside from zoning laws, there’s the lack of a unified federal intervention. This prevents any one area from addressing the local homeless issue because any area that takes steps to address it will consequently absorb more homeless individuals from other places in the country. For example, if a city in California develops a program to house any homeless individuals, then homeless individuals from other cities and states will be more likely to go to said city to get housed. Even worse, there are states that would actually pay for their transportation. What would happen is that either the city would have to solve a much larger homeless problem as new homeless move into town, or the initial wave of homeless people will be house while the new arrivals and homeless will stay homeless, leaving a continued homeless problem.
Sure they do. Look at all of the posts from my neighbors on Facebook and Nextdoor every time a developer tries to build an apartment building instead of a single family home in our neighborhood.
We’re not building homes, we’re not focussing on density. But apparently our elected officials have no problem letting people set up shanty towns. Where do you think the priorities lay?
“Billionaires’ opinions on my marketable skills are the foundation of my self-worth, and everyone who doesn’t think the way I do deserves to rot in the gutter.”
Imagine thinking living in an apartment with heat, water, furniture, dishwasher, clothes washer, electricity, all the amenities, is the same as living in a tent. Exactly what the meme says: brainwashed society.
I’m just saying the two are part of the same picture, both literally and metaphorically. Often when people go against these they point to the homeless in cities. I get and agree with the point, I just don’t agree with the presentation; maybe some similar picture for the bottom in a suburb would do
Again, I'm not saying that tents must be associated with apartments. I'm saying that people who oppose things like apartments often associate homelessness with density in their arguments.
I hate both of them equally and with a vile passion. Having to share walls with other families is just as inhumane. I don’t know why “Urban Sprawl” is such a looked down upon term. I’d much rather cities start as a central hub, and then urban sprawl outwards with minor hubs surrounding them every 100 miles or so.
This whole – either everyone has to be packed like sardines, or everyone has to have 5 acres per house crap is annoying. Give the nation some medium density housing. We have the fucking internet now, half the people can work from home. You don’t need to be walking-distance from everything.
With “Urban Sprawl,” reliable public transit, and working from home, we could each nurture our personal green space and drastically cut emissions. I’m all for it.
Have…you sat there and thought about what you’re asking? What “affordable housing” complexes do you know that aren’t made out of paper walls? That’s the “affordable” part.
Two poorer Eastern European countries have 90%+ of their citizens living in government owned housing. It costs them 2% of their monthly income. They prefer the apartments because the government built them properly, so they are modern, and well maintained. Oh, year and the rent is 2% of your income.
Come to the Netherlands, where I’m from, social housing apartments are made of brick and concrete with thick walls. No shitty 5 over 1 stick building apartments in my country.
Also social housing apartments in my country are always mixed in between owner occupied apartments of different price ranges. So the buildings are of high quality and maintained.
Nobody is saying this stupid strawman you are arguing! If the kitchen is on fire and the trashcan is full, what do you do first? Do you take out the trash first because you can’t live in such a wretched state?
Your vile passion is just thinly veiled narcissism. You can get your just desserts after we take care of major societal problems affecting the wider community. POOR YOU.
It’s literally the argument in the image. That the bottom image is “worse to look at”…what are you on about?
I’m simply commenting on a third option that people regularly complain about looking at, “Urban Sprawl”. There’s no strawman here - you should really learn what that word means. I live comfortably in a medium sized neighborhood. I don’t have to deal with the sights of either of these images at all… there’s no “poor you” because I’m…not complaining. I’m offering a third option to a 2-choices fallacy presented in the OP.
I think you missed the point of the meme and then argued about a common, tangentially related topic, which made it sound like a strawman argument. Because you seem to be more genuinely confused as to my response than arguing in bad faith, I’ll drop it. Those types of dismissive comments are meant for people arguing in bad faith.
The image is not attacking urban sprawl, it’s attacking the very mindset that you displayed in your comment: “why do I have to choose between these two things? I hate living in apartments, so why would you force me to do this?”
The meme is showing two different approaches to dealing with a massive housing crisis where many people did not have access to housing. In the first image, we see how the USSR dealt with it: they needed more houses for people, so they forced families with homes to share with those without until new homes had been built. The government subsidized the construction and focused on building economical housing that functionally fixed the problem, but at the expense of luxury and some comfort. Would people have liked more space? Yes. Was it reasonable to accommodate that want before the needs of people without housing? No.
The lower image is showing how the US has handled a massive housing crisis…it hasn’t. If someone can’t manage to find and/or afford to house themselves, they choose to force those people to live on the streets. The thought process is more individual focused rather than community focused as in the top image. “Why should the people who have houses be inconvenienced by those who do not?” This assumes that those without have some type of moral or personal failure that justifies them having nowhere to live rather than the situation being a result of a system that does not prioritize human needs. It rests on the callous assumption that people do not deserve a place to live, but they instead must earn a place to live.
As to your argument, I don’t think you offered a third option so much as a complaint about the state of the things. To be honest, I agree with your complaint. Assuming the context of your comment was focused on the US, there is plenty of space for people to live in larger homes and there isn’t some false dichotomy where we only have the options of urban sprawl or dense apartments. The problem with how you approached the problem is that without further analysis of why a housing crisis exists and how we can eliminate the source of the problem, saying “just build more medium-density housing” equates to no more than a complaint.
You cannot fix a problem unless you address the root of the problem. Pushing the homeless out of sight does not fix the problem. Much of the problem is caused by our economic and political systems, but there is also the influence of the cultural aspect in how we think about the problem and how we think about people (individualistic vs collective focus). When you focus on yourself and how the problem affects you, it is often at the expense of other people. For the people this hurts and the people cognizant of the cultural influence, seeing individualist-focused complaints really rubs them the wrong way.
Sorry, I know there are a lot of bad-faith actors here on Lemmy, I understand if you thought I was just being antagonistic.
I think the discussion about where people live is probably less helpful than discussing the method of getting there. You obviously already know my preference for where to house people, but I think the conversation we should all be having is how to get people out of the situation they’re in in the bottom picture.
Housing prices right now are out of control due to places like AirBnB, so more regulation needs to be slapped down there for sure. “Below the line” pricing needs to stop, and taxes on these short-term rentals need to be raised so that all housing doesn’t just keep looking like an investment opportunity to offshore investors.
Another problem is that a lot of the people that are homeless suffer from massive mental issues which make them unfit to live in everyday society. Many homeless suffer from schizophrenia, drug addiction, or other major mental illness. I won’t pretend that I have even the beginnings of a solution for this. Of all the solutions I hear about, many require taking these peoples rights away from them and putting them under government care, but that rarely works out the way people think it will.
I agree pushing them out of sight is not the way to handle it. I think that’s true in most things – I think a lot of us agree on a lot more than we disagree on, but we get so hung up on the details that often times online conversations spiral out of control. I commend you for being one of the few here who can actually hold a legitimate discussion without losing your cool. It’s hard to find that when half the people on here are just looking for a fight.
You’ve obviously never actually lived in one of these places. They regularly have infestations, dirty water, and no heating due to the types of people they house and the “affordable” nature of them which generally causes lack of upkeep once built. Which can be, yes – just as inhumane as living in a tent.
In addition, it removes the potential for ownership away from the people living there, in an effort to rent-seek and make sure they own nothing for as long as they live.
Not when done properly. Two poorer Eastern European countries have 90+% of their citizens living in government owned housing that costs them 2% of their monthly income. The apartments are modern, well maintained, and preferable to home ownership because 2% rent. IIRC it’s Estonia and Lithuania, but I may be wrong there.
How is that a yikes? We’re talking about poverty here, it is a class of people which regularly lack the same benefits in society as others, so there’s higher instances of drug use, crime, etc. You know in conversation, it’s occasionally useful to classify things with a broad brush so you can talk about overarching issues and how to solve them without being prejudiced, right?
I’m not gonna dox myself here bg linking my adress, but rest assured: I have been living in apartments all my adult life, and it’s been fine. The problems you describe are not inherent to apartments but rather the way landlords handle things. With better regulations and organizations that help renters assert their rights, it can be a good way to house people.
I agree that we’re incredibly overdue for regulations in these areas. Since the mid 90s it’s been deregulation, privitization, deregulation, privitization. A healthy capitalistic society can only survive with regulations which govern how absolutely atrocious capitalists can be. If they could sell you rat poison as food to make a dollar, they certainly would. My guess is that these kind of apartment complexes are probably better in less city-centric areas where the construction is newer. Unfortunately all I see going up around here is wood-frame apartment complexes, and they are clearly inferior to block/prefab concrete.
What you seems to be describing is Single-Family Housing. True medium density is actually really compact, using lots for more efficient housing and including public green space.
I don’t get people that have such a visceral reaction to apartments (the horror). What they write is frankly hilarious how they think. Right up there with what they write about transit (ohhh noooo) and electric stoves [sobbing noises].
Fucking tell me about it. The best part is how they try to justify how they are only focused on themselves by shit like calling apartments “inhumane.” JFC, living in an apartment is not inhumane. Living on the street is inhumane.
There’s a pretty big spectrum though. On the one hand you have people in suburbs or in-city suburbs complaining about not building the occasional apartment building, essentially because they’re scared of poor people, but then on the other hand you have people living in dense desirable mid sized cities watching them get manhattanized and have their relatively dense yet still pleasant row houses get torn to build rows of ugly skyscrapers that block sunlight from even reaching street level.
The shift of housing from being predominantly individually owned to being parts of major buildings has also come along with the corporatization of real estate, where individuals have less choice, less freedom, and are in many many cases, are being actively exploited by for profit landlords and real estate developers.
Yes, we need to density and build more apartments but people on the left these days who I normally agree with are so laser focused on building housing at all costs that they don’t even realize that they’re racing to the bottom. By today’s standards Jane Jacobs, basically the founder of the entire modern urbanism movement, would be a NIMBY just because she advocated for making sure that cities remain livable rather than just building at all costs.
Let’s build way more low and mid rise apartment buildings, and let’s build way more transit so that cities other than just the major ones are livable without a car, let’s ban airbnb, and let’s severely tax real estate and landlord profits to prevent them from hoarding supply. And yeah we’re gonna have to build some high rises, but let’s not pretend like replacing all of our individual housing with towers is universally a great thing.
apartment building, essentially because they’re scared of poor people
Fake association that people in apartments are poor. Don’t know if you hold that idea, but you’re repeating it
ugly skyscrapers
You’ve now defined them as ugly and thus undesirable.
individuals have less choice, less freedom
Now you say apartments are against freeeeeddooomm lol.
actively exploited
As if you can’t own a condo.
Or if we increase apartments builds then there will be actual competition. Instead of the current scarcity. Basic supply and demand.
building housing at all costs
Not like we have a mf housing crisis. Noooo.
making sure that cities remain livable rather than just building at all costs.
Now you suggest that building apartments makes things unlivable! The very place people live is somehow unlivable. Or that apartments inherently make the surrounding area undesirable.
On the one hand you have people in suburbs or in-city suburbs complaining about not building the occasional apartment building, essentially because they’re scared of poor people,
Fake association that people in apartments are poor. Don’t know if you hold that idea, but you’re repeating it
It’s pretty obvious I don’t, and if you think accurately describing the misguided motivations of people counts as repeating propaganda, then you must live in a pretty thick bubble.
You’ve now defined them as ugly and thus undesirable.
They are.
As if you can’t own a condo.
You have to buy the condo from a corporation, you have to pay condo fees to a condo board that is out of your control, and much of the quality of your home is determined by the original corporation that built it, as well as that board that you have no real control over and typically pays out maintenance, repairs, upgrades, etc. to other corporations.
Or if we increase apartments builds then there will be actual competition. Instead of the current scarcity. Basic supply and demand.
I advocated for increasing apartment builds. I also advocated for numerous other measures to increase rental supply, I just didn’t advocate for blindly buying the developer propaganda and letting them build high rise after high rise.
Not like we have a mf housing crisis. Noooo.
So since we have a food supply crisis we should all stop cooking and hand over all food control to corporations that will sell us back bland nutrition paste?
Now you suggest that building apartments makes things unlivable! The very place people live is somehow unlivable. Or that apartments inherently make the surrounding area undesirable.
They literally do. Go live in Manhattan, it sucks. Sunlight literally doesn’t hit street level except for at noon because you’ve put a bunch of gargantuan towers everywhere. Go look at a complex like Habitat 67 that actually tried to make apartments pleasant to live in instead of just being the cheapest they can possibly be to maximize developer profit. Go look at the size of Walmart parking lots in small towns that are the size of entire Manhattan blocks. Yes we need to densify, no we don’t need to necessarily build blindly and continue just letting the free market decide what gets built where.
Yeah. Visceral reaction to apartments. Peace.
Yeah, not having a visceral reaction to anything, just plainly stating their benefits and downsides, though you seem to be having a visceral reaction to any perceived criticism of apartments whatsoever.
The USSR didn’t do much good but those apartment buildings are definitely good. I used to live in a soviet apartment building and the funny thing about that was that every wall was a load bearing wall since all of them could hold up everything. They were thick as hell and fully concrete.
I’m living in a soviet-built tenement block, and the only time I’ve heard anything from a neighbour is when the guy living above me dropped a bowling ball.
Okay, I just went from “eh, commie blocks are gross but better than tents” to “fuck all the other apartments, bring on the commie blocks”. Buildings in the US are built so ridiculously cheaply that in a lot of lower-rent buildings you can hear everything.
Commie blocks do have some issues like absolutely awful electrical wiring or lack of insulation but a lot of ex soviet countries renovate those buildings which leaves no downsides.
Commie blocks do have some issues like absolutely awful electrical wiring
Default wiring is not impossible to replace. My building from 70-ies has global PE, only thing left is to replace aluminium wiring without PE inside appartment to 3-wire copper wiring.
that every wall was a load bearing wall since all of them could hold up everything.
It seems you lived in panel building. There are limitations to it like you should not add horisontal chases becaue it reduces load capacity or can’t replan appartment because it will be destruction of load bearong wall. So wiring better be done in factory-made in-wall concrete tubes.
Add comment