3 ms·

Its kinda funny you mention this because a lot of communist countries did pretty much this with high rise apartments. They're still there too.

bwb 2y ago
Ya good point, I see those all the time in Serbia. We need some kinda of base building for supply, and the rest of the bit where they can override local zoning, speed up permits, override reviews, etc.
gonzo41 2y ago
And that's kind of the dream TBH. Every private dollar that goes into housing is a dollar taken away from people who could be building businesses themselves or investing. Having cheap, plentiful housing provides a base that people can build from. There's other benefits too, say your relationships explodes and you need a new place, the last thing you want to do is be living with your ex, or couch surfing with friends.
vidarh 2y ago
Par of Khrushchev's legacy was switching away from the earlier focus on higher quality housing that largely favoured the elite in favour of throwing up cheap housing fast to alleviate the severe housing crisis. But as a result, a more enduring part of his legacy became that due to economic stagnation, a large proportion of this really poor quality housing that was indeded as a stopgap to meet desperate short-term housing need, survived not just Khrushchev, but the Soviet Union...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- antisthenes 2y ago
  > But as a result, a more enduring part of his legacy became that due to economic stagnation, a large proportion of this really poor quality housing that was indeded as a stopgap to meet desperate short-term housing need, survived not just Khrushchev, but the Soviet Union... The alternative was people living in sheds and 19th-century timber huts that were falling apart. The Khrushchev apartment blocks, despite their many disadvantages, were a godsend to the ballooning (at the time) population and necessary to support the rapid urbanization without homelessness. The HN bubble will never understand that you can't solve the housing problem with only high-quality desirable housing while still making it cheap enough for the bottom quartile to afford it. That's not even getting into the regulation side of it and local council/town NIMBYs
  - vidarh 2y ago
    Sure. I think for all of Khruschev's faults, his housing policy was a significant positive. It is just also a cautionary tale of how easily a temporary fix becomes semi-permanent, but that was on his successors and the failure of the longer term Soviet economy.

bwb 2y ago

Ya good point, I see those all the time in Serbia. We need some kinda of base building for supply, and the rest of the bit where they can override local zoning, speed up permits, override reviews, etc.

gonzo41 2y ago

And that's kind of the dream TBH. Every private dollar that goes into housing is a dollar taken away from people who could be building businesses themselves or investing. Having cheap, plentiful housing provides a base that people can build from. There's other benefits too, say your relationships explodes and you need a new place, the last thing you want to do is be living with your ex, or couch surfing with friends.

vidarh 2y ago

Par of Khrushchev's legacy was switching away from the earlier focus on higher quality housing that largely favoured the elite in favour of throwing up cheap housing fast to alleviate the severe housing crisis. But as a result, a more enduring part of his legacy became that due to economic stagnation, a large proportion of this really poor quality housing that was indeded as a stopgap to meet desperate short-term housing need, survived not just Khrushchev, but the Soviet Union...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
antisthenes 2y ago
> But as a result, a more enduring part of his legacy became that due to economic stagnation, a large proportion of this really poor quality housing that was indeded as a stopgap to meet desperate short-term housing need, survived not just Khrushchev, but the Soviet Union... The alternative was people living in sheds and 19th-century timber huts that were falling apart. The Khrushchev apartment blocks, despite their many disadvantages, were a godsend to the ballooning (at the time) population and necessary to support the rapid urbanization without homelessness. The HN bubble will never understand that you can't solve the housing problem with only high-quality desirable housing while still making it cheap enough for the bottom quartile to afford it. That's not even getting into the regulation side of it and local council/town NIMBYs
- vidarh 2y ago
  Sure. I think for all of Khruschev's faults, his housing policy was a significant positive. It is just also a cautionary tale of how easily a temporary fix becomes semi-permanent, but that was on his successors and the failure of the longer term Soviet economy.