4 ms·

Turn them into low income housing and service centers for the poor.

rak 2y ago
I like this idea. I would even settle for the mixed income housing that a lot of development companies here (DC) were supposed to build when they received subsidies from the government.
ltbarcly3 2y ago
Yes, lets concentrate poor people in tall apartment towers in downtown areas. What could go wrong?
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > What could go wrong? Or what could go right. Service and civic workers would finally have housing that wasn't 2 hours away from their city jobs.
  - ltbarcly3 2y ago
    Nobody will live in the projects except people who have no way to escape.
    - pineaux 2y ago
      This is not true. Here in Holland developers of high rises are forced to make 40% of it social housing. This works quite well. The social housing system is broken, but thats mostly because they havent built enough housing in the last 50 years.
      - anon291 2y ago
        > The social housing system is broken, but thats mostly because they havent built enough housing in the last 50 years. So it's not working well.
        TimedToasts 2y ago
        The hypothetical housing is doing great!
    - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
      > Nobody will live in the projects except people who have no way to escape. There are more people for whom ex-commercial housing would work - than there are (or ever will be) units to house them. Even in a tough neighborhood I'd of done it, if I had work nearby. I once parked the I was living in my employer's parking lot.
Raztuf 2y ago
Not to be cynical but this is an invitation to rampant criminality in city centers.
- scanr 2y ago
  London seems to manage this petty well. I think it’s quite healthy for a city to commingle folk from different income groups rather than house them in specific areas.
  - GardenLetter27 2y ago
    Why should the government steal my income to destroy the value of my property by paying to house criminals next door? The Free Market solves this perfectly - let people own their property and have a stake in where they live and maintaining the community and safety. We just need to let people build and bring a real free market to property.
    - phone8675309 2y ago
      The fact that you assume all of the poor are criminals disqualifies you from having your opinion on this taken seriously.
    - oo0shiny 2y ago
      How is the government stealing your income or destroying the value of your property? Seems a bit hyperbolic. And if the free market solves this, why are we in this situation in the first place? Shouldn't the free market have solved this already? Instead we have piles of empty houses/buildings and more homeless than ever before.
      - GardenLetter27 2y ago
        Because there is no free market in housing whatsoever. Owning land doesn't give you the right to build anything. You need planning permission - which means permission from the local council, local homeowners and consultation, etc. which gives the NIMBY attitude so much power. There aren't piles of empty houses. There aren't enough houses at all.
SmoothBrain123 2y ago
I love Judge Dredd.
schneems 2y ago
Mixed income and mixed use is my preference. The Austin Plaza Saltillo project is a great example. Shops at the bottom make it useful for the whole community. Parking is in garages underneath which promotes walk ability. When you see someone going to their place you don’t know if they are on food stamps or are a tech millionaire. There’s less stigma and more respect for all neighbors.
redtexture 2y ago
It is expensive to convert a building. Not exactly low cost, nor low income capable.
the_optimist 2y ago
Rather than this relatively low-effort idea, just think about the other marginalized groups for which appeal could be curried: - orphans and widowers - statutorily limited peoples - losers of the womb lottery - the soft in spirit - students of life - unhoused migrants - homeless encampment simulator And failing this: - displaced urban wildlife - tear it down and make space for plants
- cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  > losers of the womb lottery What?
  - i_play_stax 2y ago
    He means people not born into significant privilege
cynicalsecurity 2y ago
This is a recipe for disaster.

rak 2y ago

I like this idea. I would even settle for the mixed income housing that a lot of development companies here (DC) were supposed to build when they received subsidies from the government.

ltbarcly3 2y ago

Yes, lets concentrate poor people in tall apartment towers in downtown areas. What could go wrong?

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> What could go wrong? Or what could go right. Service and civic workers would finally have housing that wasn't 2 hours away from their city jobs.
- ltbarcly3 2y ago
  Nobody will live in the projects except people who have no way to escape.
  - pineaux 2y ago
    This is not true. Here in Holland developers of high rises are forced to make 40% of it social housing. This works quite well. The social housing system is broken, but thats mostly because they havent built enough housing in the last 50 years.
    - anon291 2y ago
      > The social housing system is broken, but thats mostly because they havent built enough housing in the last 50 years. So it's not working well.
      - TimedToasts 2y ago
        The hypothetical housing is doing great!
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > Nobody will live in the projects except people who have no way to escape. There are more people for whom ex-commercial housing would work - than there are (or ever will be) units to house them. Even in a tough neighborhood I'd of done it, if I had work nearby. I once parked the I was living in my employer's parking lot.

Raztuf 2y ago

Not to be cynical but this is an invitation to rampant criminality in city centers.

scanr 2y ago
London seems to manage this petty well. I think it’s quite healthy for a city to commingle folk from different income groups rather than house them in specific areas.
- GardenLetter27 2y ago
  Why should the government steal my income to destroy the value of my property by paying to house criminals next door? The Free Market solves this perfectly - let people own their property and have a stake in where they live and maintaining the community and safety. We just need to let people build and bring a real free market to property.
  - phone8675309 2y ago
    The fact that you assume all of the poor are criminals disqualifies you from having your opinion on this taken seriously.
  - oo0shiny 2y ago
    How is the government stealing your income or destroying the value of your property? Seems a bit hyperbolic. And if the free market solves this, why are we in this situation in the first place? Shouldn't the free market have solved this already? Instead we have piles of empty houses/buildings and more homeless than ever before.
    - GardenLetter27 2y ago
      Because there is no free market in housing whatsoever. Owning land doesn't give you the right to build anything. You need planning permission - which means permission from the local council, local homeowners and consultation, etc. which gives the NIMBY attitude so much power. There aren't piles of empty houses. There aren't enough houses at all.

SmoothBrain123 2y ago

I love Judge Dredd.

schneems 2y ago

Mixed income and mixed use is my preference. The Austin Plaza Saltillo project is a great example. Shops at the bottom make it useful for the whole community. Parking is in garages underneath which promotes walk ability. When you see someone going to their place you don’t know if they are on food stamps or are a tech millionaire. There’s less stigma and more respect for all neighbors.

redtexture 2y ago

It is expensive to convert a building. Not exactly low cost, nor low income capable.

the_optimist 2y ago

Rather than this relatively low-effort idea, just think about the other marginalized groups for which appeal could be curried: - orphans and widowers - statutorily limited peoples - losers of the womb lottery - the soft in spirit - students of life - unhoused migrants - homeless encampment simulator And failing this: - displaced urban wildlife - tear it down and make space for plants

cynicalsecurity 2y ago
> losers of the womb lottery What?
- i_play_stax 2y ago
  He means people not born into significant privilege

cynicalsecurity 2y ago

This is a recipe for disaster.