4 ms·

In the UK social housing has a bad reputation because poor people are far more likely to just be nightmares to live nearby. I lived in one throughout my entire

• davidw 4y ago
  You can make a decent argument that concentrated poverty does cause some problems. Which is why you should do your best to spread all kinds of housing throughout a city, including plenty of upzoning in wealthier areas.
  • throwaway22032 4y ago
    I'd rather just live next to well off people to be honest. We do it on a national scale in most countries (visa policy). That's far harsher.
  • jaywalk 4y ago
    Just build high-density housing in rich areas! And then what, you expect rich people to move in? They won't. Poor people are going to move in. And the rich people who made that area nice in the first place are going to flee, because it will turn into a not-nice area.
    • ryukafalz 4y ago
      Famously all the rich people have moved out of Manhattan.
      • jaywalk 4y ago
        Manhattan is Manhattan. My nice, quiet suburb is not Manhattan.
        • ryukafalz 4y ago
          And your nice, quiet suburb is unlikely to get many high-rises if it’s actually far enough away from the nearest city center, because it doesn’t particularly make sense to build towers in the middle of nowhere. By contrast if your suburb is nice and quiet despite being right next to a city because decades of policy have locked it in place and it’s pricing people out… too bad? Other people need housing too and outward from an already dense city is where it makes the most sense to build them.
          • jaywalk 4y ago
            Too bad? Hilarious. Stay in your concrete hellhole, and stop acting like you know what's best for everyone else. If I wanted to live like you, I'd live where you do. And no matter how much you want my area to change (because you clearly can't stand for people to live in ways you don't agree with) it's not going to.
            • kaashif 4y ago
              > Stay in your concrete hellhole, and stop acting like you know what's best for everyone else. So the side advocating for upzoning (allowing people to build what they want on their own properties) is "acting like they know what's best for everyone else" while you, advocating for strict limits on what others can do on their own properties according to your desires, aren't? I guess we can make this consistent if you admit you're doing something you know isn't best for everyone else, and aren't even trying to. Which would be fine if you weren't using the state to support your aims. If we don't do that, and both sides are trying to do what they think is best for everyone, this is a difference in degree not kind. There obviously need to be limits on any zoning. > because you clearly can't stand for people to live in ways you don't agree with You are in support of using the coercive power of government to restrict your neighbors from living in ways you disagree with, if those ways include building more housing!
              • lupire 4y ago
                It's pretty obvious how GP values other people vs themselves. They've stated it clearly and repeatedly.
  • giantg2 4y ago
    "You can make a decent argument that concentrated poverty does cause some problems." What differs between it being concentrated or spread out? I see you're making the argument that it should be spread out, but I don't see any explaination of the benefits. Edit: why disagree? This is an honest question.
    • jaywalk 4y ago
      Forcing poor people into rich areas will make them stop being poor. Or so I've gathered.
      • bombcar 4y ago
        It just makes the rich people move away. We call it blight, white flight, and gentrification as it cycles around.
  • AmVess 4y ago
    Good idea. We'll start with where you live. You get to put up with the noise at all hours, the high crime, and the generally shit condition lazy people keep their neighborhoods in. After living in it for a few years, you can come back and tell us how great it is.
    • ryukafalz 4y ago
      By all means, upzone where I live!