5 ms·

i watched a couple youtubes over the past few months on this -- if you supply at least some public housing, it can have an outsized ability to keep rents down:

• lxm 3y ago
  US has toyed with "the projects" idea half a century ago, but the end result always seemed to end up in concentrated crime. It's doubtful that those experiments had meaningful impact on overall rents with everyone yearning to get out of public housing as soon as possible. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe
  • readonthegoapp 3y ago
    i do know some of these places ended up as disasters, but it seems like they were designed to fail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe#Decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe#Decline Decline By 1958, just four years after the opening of the project, deteriorating conditions were already evident.[32] Elevator breakdowns and vandalism were cited as major problems[33]—Yamasaki later lamented that he "never thought people were that destructive".[34] Ventilation was poor, and the buildings lacked centralized air conditioning despite St. Louis's hot and humid summers.[27] Meanwhile, the St. Louis Housing Authority was in the midst of a decades-long problem with inefficient and costly maintenance of its buildings, partly attributed to the power of labor unions.[35] The stairwells and corridors attracted muggers, a situation exacerbated by the skip-stop elevators.[33] Its location in "a sea of decaying and abandoned buildings" and limited access to shopping and recreation (ground-floor businesses had been eliminated from the design to save money[21]) contributed to its problems.[36] Despite its size, the complex had no public mailbox.[37] The huge, 11-story buildings of the development were reportedly a magnet for criminals and vagrants from the surrounding low-rise slums;[36] a 1959 audit reported that most of the vandalism was done by transients rather than residents,[38] and a 1967 report similarly found that a "relatively large proportion" of crimes were committed by outsiders.[39] Large criminal gangs were not common in the project.[40] But I'd be curious to see comparisons between public housing that works and public housing that fails. i imagine it is a snowball effect in either direction. that is, malignant design probably with official neglect from everyone in power quickly starts a downwards spiral, whereas the opposite leads to a well-maintained community that just ends up bumping up against a racist/classist glass ceiling where at least residents still have a chance at a dignified life, including and especially the children. and plenty of in-between. but, don't know. ...someone made a movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_zFIg8N9Rw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_zFIg8N9Rw
    • lxm 3y ago
      Developments like that were happening elsewhere. Are there any notable success stories?
      • readonthegoapp 3y ago
        i would guess any one that hasn't been demolished yet can be termed a success, but it probably depends on your definition of 'success'. i think of all the 'slums' that Robert Moses and other folks demolished throughout history. they could have used a little investment instead of disinvestment/neglect, but even as is, they were successes in most folks' views -- including and especially the people that lived in those neighborhoods and buildings -- but Moses and others had the power. does public housing provide housing to people? yes. does that make it a success? i would say 'yes' -- maybe a qualified yes. is it still a success if there is crime and no heat and etc.? still maybe a 'yes', since the other option is probably homelessness and jail and near-total loss of dignity, but again, goes back to one's definition of success. shoot, this lefty-ish video (11 min) says it's currently illegal for the US to build more (federal?) public housing -- tf? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw0KqSNHXqg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw0KqSNHXqg but i kind of see 'successful public housing' as 'successful [insert federal program here]' -- if a program was grandfathered in a long time ago, it might be able to stick around for a while, but even then it will continue to be under relentless attack until it is gone -- think Social Security or public education or, as the video points out, public housing. and creating new 'successful' public programs of any kind today is probably completely off the table -- unless it's really just a facade for grift -- a way to filter a few billion/trillion to private enterprise -- think Department of Homeland Security. even where there is massive public support for a federal program -- think Medicare for All (free/taxpayer/public-funded health care) -- maybe 70% of the population wants it, depending on which polling firms/questions are asked -- and there is little to no chance of it becoming reality because the US is a low-democracy country. but change is always possible if the population decides to fight back. i heard an anecdote, i think from 'Poverty, By America' (Matthew Desmond), about a convergence of protests in DC where a group of Maga protesters and a group of Civil Rights protesters happened to see each other and ended up shaking hands in solidarity with each other over either the expensive cost of housing or cost of living or something. that makes sense to me. we're not there yet, but it always seems like a possibility that is lurking around the corner. https://bookshop.org/p/books/poverty-by-america-matthew-desmond/18603208 https://bookshop.org/p/books/poverty-by-america-matthew-desm...