3 ms·
Much of Eastern Europe tried this between the 1940s through the late 1980s. The result was blocks upon blocks of cramped, drab apartments with long waiting peri
by thinkski 5y ago
Much of Eastern Europe tried this between the 1940s through the late 1980s. The result was blocks upon blocks of cramped, drab apartments with long waiting periods to get one. If you were married, you could get one sooner, which resulted in unhappy marriages. It sounds good in theory, in practice it didn’t work.
- DavidAdams 5y agoI don't think that what this article is describing is similar at all to Eastern Europe-style public housing. The US also had a big experiment in public housing in the 20th century, that also had a lot of bad results.
- Pfhreak 5y agoThe US had a history of spending capex on flashy high rise housing. Then failing to spend the opex necessary to maintain what they built. Large buildings are harder to maintain and require more specialized labor. Means testing and segregation also impacted public housing in the US. (Better not make too much money or you'll have to leave!) There are several instances of successful public housing efforts in the US and Europe, typically more low rise or mid rise distributed properties.
- bombcar 5y agoPart of the problem is the false dichotomy between single family suburban style dwellings and high-rises. The middle ground, medium density row houses and similar, is almost impossible to build anymore in many locations. The costs and regulations are such that either you build a single family dwelling or fight for a high-rise.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoIt’s a dichotomy because politically active and influential people do not want density near their detached single family suburban style homes. Everyone wants to live around people at or above their level. If you’re a developer, then fighting against this group will take a lot of resources and it’s risky, so you can’t bet on medium density to make it worth it, you have to aim for more.