6 ms·

But isn't this what public housing projects in the US did, and are now considered massive failures?

by gedy 10y ago

vvpan 10y ago
Well, the theory, as I've heard an urban planner explain in a video, is that the problem with projects is that they are populated by people of exactly the same class. A mixed income/background area is less likely to turn into what projects did. I'm just quoting somebody else here, won't claim that it's a fact.
taneq 10y ago
The reason for the US public housing projects' failure is wealth inequality. When your population has a mix of well-off people and very poor people, and you provide super-cheap housing, the very poor people gravitate to it, among them those who are desperate, have nothing to lose, involved in drugs and crime, etc. Once this happens the crime rate goes up, the area feels unsafe to 'normal' people, and anyone who can do so gets the hell out of there. The area turns into a slum and is basically impossible to 'fix' without redeveloping it. I'd guess that in Russia, one of two things happens. Either Russia's wealth distribution is even enough under communism that the rot never sets in, or in practice they're just as much of a slum as the American ones and we're just seeing a romanticized view.
- sssilver 10y ago
  It was the former.
- kazagistar 10y ago
  I was born in one of those cities where most housing is in the form of the old communist panelaks. But there is a clear distinction between the nice neighborhoods (5-10 floor buildings, trees and parks filling the sizable spaces) and the shitty ones (20+ floors, densely packed, near interstates, spaced with dirt). The former are a nice place to raise a middle class family, and the latter are crime filled slums.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  How would having fewer rich people prevent the poor from committing crimes against the middle class (or just publicly engaging in victimless crimes[1]) and engaging in other behaviors that make an area feel unsafe? As a counterpoint, consider India and most of Asia. Poor areas are dirty and have little infrastructure, but they don't feel unsafe. I occasionally shop in Dharavi and don't feel unsafe at all. [1] I believe that lots of strung out drug addicts make an area feel unsafe even if they don't harm anyone.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    The difference is that there wouldn't be such intense concentrations of poor people when people moving to the area are less driven by wealth inequality. Also strung out drug addicts are likely to be driven to theft.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    When the middle class is only barely more wealthy than the destitute, there is no point for the poor to try to rob them. And then only the political elite is much richer (in practise even if not in theory), and they are protected well by the police and the military. This can be the situation in places with centrally managed economies like North Korea today. Obviously, they are also very safe (from the regular criminal behaviour point of view).
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      If that were true then areas with concentrated poverty should have negligible crime - why bother robbing anyone if everyone is poor? Yet that is the exact opposite of what is seen in reality.
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        A single concentrated poverty spot naturally doesn't work like that. It is immersed in a culture that shows it the income and wealth inequalities, as well as uses them to justify violence. But when a country is universally poor but has a working and stable government, you may have surprisingly low crime rates. But then, such a country often doesn't stay poor. (Look at China...)
- markov01 10y ago
  in Russia most people with low-income just can't afford new housing and live with parents or in inherited apartments after their grandparents/parents die those apartments we not bought, but privatized after Soviet Union collapse, where people get apartments for "free" after approx. 10 years working on a factory or so... so in new projects, which are sold for money with mortgage rates at 12% annually there's no people that have "nothing to lose", people that have "nothing to lose" are widespread, living in apartments their parents got in Soviet Union
TulliusCicero 10y ago
Public housing in the US was poorly implemented. It was strictly low-income, rather than mixed-income, and the housing was largely soulless large complexes far from amenities. Other countries, like Austria, have public housing that works perfectly fine.
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  I found "Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing" very educational about why the US had such poorly implemented public housing (at least in Chicago). Early efforts were mixed income, small and in desirable locations. They were also by many measures very successful. That model was moved away from because it eroded the power base of the political leaders of the day and for straight up racist reasons. Its also largely a myth that the large block, low income model was ever seen as likely to succeed. Public housing experts and advocates at the time anticipated the disastrous results that came about.

But isn't this what public housing projects in the US did, and are now considered massive failures?

by gedy 10y ago

But isn't this what public housing projects in the US did, and are now considered massive failures?

vvpan 10y ago

Well, the theory, as I've heard an urban planner explain in a video, is that the problem with projects is that they are populated by people of exactly the same class. A mixed income/background area is less likely to turn into what projects did. I'm just quoting somebody else here, won't claim that it's a fact.

taneq 10y ago

The reason for the US public housing projects' failure is wealth inequality. When your population has a mix of well-off people and very poor people, and you provide super-cheap housing, the very poor people gravitate to it, among them those who are desperate, have nothing to lose, involved in drugs and crime, etc. Once this happens the crime rate goes up, the area feels unsafe to 'normal' people, and anyone who can do so gets the hell out of there. The area turns into a slum and is basically impossible to 'fix' without redeveloping it. I'd guess that in Russia, one of two things happens. Either Russia's wealth distribution is even enough under communism that the rot never sets in, or in practice they're just as much of a slum as the American ones and we're just seeing a romanticized view.

sssilver 10y ago
It was the former.
kazagistar 10y ago
I was born in one of those cities where most housing is in the form of the old communist panelaks. But there is a clear distinction between the nice neighborhoods (5-10 floor buildings, trees and parks filling the sizable spaces) and the shitty ones (20+ floors, densely packed, near interstates, spaced with dirt). The former are a nice place to raise a middle class family, and the latter are crime filled slums.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
How would having fewer rich people prevent the poor from committing crimes against the middle class (or just publicly engaging in victimless crimes[1]) and engaging in other behaviors that make an area feel unsafe? As a counterpoint, consider India and most of Asia. Poor areas are dirty and have little infrastructure, but they don't feel unsafe. I occasionally shop in Dharavi and don't feel unsafe at all. [1] I believe that lots of strung out drug addicts make an area feel unsafe even if they don't harm anyone.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  The difference is that there wouldn't be such intense concentrations of poor people when people moving to the area are less driven by wealth inequality. Also strung out drug addicts are likely to be driven to theft.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  When the middle class is only barely more wealthy than the destitute, there is no point for the poor to try to rob them. And then only the political elite is much richer (in practise even if not in theory), and they are protected well by the police and the military. This can be the situation in places with centrally managed economies like North Korea today. Obviously, they are also very safe (from the regular criminal behaviour point of view).
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    If that were true then areas with concentrated poverty should have negligible crime - why bother robbing anyone if everyone is poor? Yet that is the exact opposite of what is seen in reality.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      A single concentrated poverty spot naturally doesn't work like that. It is immersed in a culture that shows it the income and wealth inequalities, as well as uses them to justify violence. But when a country is universally poor but has a working and stable government, you may have surprisingly low crime rates. But then, such a country often doesn't stay poor. (Look at China...)
markov01 10y ago
in Russia most people with low-income just can't afford new housing and live with parents or in inherited apartments after their grandparents/parents die those apartments we not bought, but privatized after Soviet Union collapse, where people get apartments for "free" after approx. 10 years working on a factory or so... so in new projects, which are sold for money with mortgage rates at 12% annually there's no people that have "nothing to lose", people that have "nothing to lose" are widespread, living in apartments their parents got in Soviet Union

TulliusCicero 10y ago

Public housing in the US was poorly implemented. It was strictly low-income, rather than mixed-income, and the housing was largely soulless large complexes far from amenities. Other countries, like Austria, have public housing that works perfectly fine.

kasey_junk 10y ago
I found "Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing" very educational about why the US had such poorly implemented public housing (at least in Chicago). Early efforts were mixed income, small and in desirable locations. They were also by many measures very successful. That model was moved away from because it eroded the power base of the political leaders of the day and for straight up racist reasons. Its also largely a myth that the large block, low income model was ever seen as likely to succeed. Public housing experts and advocates at the time anticipated the disastrous results that came about.