3 ms·
Public housing in thE US is almost entirely shitholes, though. It's better than being homeless, maybe. That's about it. That is the reason many large cities hav
by throwaway201103 6y ago
Public housing in thE US is almost entirely shitholes, though. It's better than being homeless, maybe. That's about it. That is the reason many large cities have torn most of it down and replaced it with section 8 vouchers. This scatters the ghetto-dwellers from their former high-rise islands into neighborhoods, which triggers flight by the existing residents since the people coming out of public housing are clueless about taking care of a property and being good neighbors.
- Pfhreak 6y agoThat's entirely because of the way our procurement process works. We have separate capital and maintenance procurement processes. Typically, we splurge on a high capital budget (the cost to build housing) and then skimp or cut out the maintenance budget. Or worse, we expect the housing to be self supporting. Public housing done right is distributed, low rise apartments rented below market rate and not expected to be self supporting. As a tax payer, it's so frustrating to see us build good things and then totally neglect to maintain them. I will say that high rise public housing in the US introduces complexity because it necessitates a degree of service infrastructure that's more costly than more, lower buildings.
- mullingitover 6y agoI brought up Singapore's public housing model because in Singapore residents have the option to buy, so the housing is occupied and maintained by owners who are invested in the property. I think this would work well in California and would avoid a lot of the previous, designed-to-fail public housing systems we've tried. Singapore attaches their public housing to transit and doesn't have California's regulations for parking, which cuts costs significantly.