2 ms·
Social housing, specifically distributed low rise, well maintained Why "low rise"? High rise is more efficient. High rise has a bad reputation but all the repu
by joe_the_user 4y ago
Social housing, specifically distributed low rise, well maintained
Why "low rise"? High rise is more efficient. High rise has a bad reputation but all the reputation stuff has been pretty coordinated by those who don't want public housing at all. And sure, well maintained.
I'm in favor of rent control but with enough dense housing, rent control won't be fighting supply and demand.
- EngManagerIsMe 4y agoThe reason I prefer low rise (especially in the 3-6 floors range) is because they require less specialized service. Maintaining the systems for a 40 story building requires specialists in hvac, elevators, plumbing, fire suppression, window washing, painting, siding, etc. that are simply less available than the folks who know how to get up on a ladder and just fix it. Low rise also decentralizes services needed to support social housing, and allows local communities to build relationships that are less adversarial with the housing. (Which, imo, might be a uniquely American view that social housing is for the poor only.) So, in the initial rollouts, I think it makes it appear more palatable to American communities. Now, I agree, high rise is more efficient across other axes. And I'd take well maintained high rise social housing over the current status quo. I have preferences here, but I don't believe that high rises are wrong. Just not my preference.
- orwin 4y agoLow-rise is also cheaper, and easier to insulate. I think the sweet spot is 4 floors, but 2 to 5 is okay, and even midrise can be made beautiful. If people are interested in what beautiful midrise social housing look like, check out Le Plessis-Robinson near Paris