4 ms·
The 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 h
by Pfhreak 6y ago
The 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 6y 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 6y 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.