I’m not American, I’m British. Towns and cities all across Europe are filled with “5 over 1s” and similar, and it’s fine, and works well. Just because the US can’t not fuck it up, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for everyone else.
Solving homelessness isn’t aesthetically pleasing enough? I know a certain GERMAN political party that agrees with your sentiment…
Lemmy.ml user try not to accuse another user of being a Nazi for literally no credible reason challenge: impossible.
We’re a discussion about architecture and urban planning, my dude. Commie blocs solved the homelessness relatively quickly and relatively cheaply. Great. Fantastic. That doesn’t they were best and most ideal solution possible at the time, and it certainly doesn’t mean they’re the best and most ideal solution now.
Now, as it stands, I don’t think commie blocks are that bad, I just felt like pointing out that your arguments seemed somewhat unserious, but in case you’re curious, here are the things I think are non-ideal about commie blocks:
People tend to prefer “human scale” architecture in places that are supposed to be comfortable and large clusters of high rise buildings tend to make people feel small.
They require steel and concrete to build, which is a concern in terms of carbon footprint, whereas 5 over 1s and similarly sized buildings can get away with using wooden frame construction.
High rises cost more per occupant to maintain than a similarly constructed mid rise, as a general rule.
The need for access to lighting, etc. means that the buildings must be spaced a fair distance apart, so the effective footprint still ends up being similar to a wider-based mid rise bulding. And while this does allow for green space, it’s green space that has to be kept low (so as not to interfere with the lower floors) and needs constant maintenance, so it tends to be fairly bland.
The physical separation between the blocks and the reliance on public transport to reach facilities tends to promote social isolation in a similar way to suburbs.
High rises mean that the vast majority of the occupants must either rely of lifts (and there are never enough working lifts) or be able-bodied and fit.
If you’re asking me what I’d prefer instead, I’m thinking something like Eixample.
Yeah, I swiped it all out on the phone, and I accidentally a few words. Sorry, that’s my bad.
I think that when we’re talking about housing, it should perhaps be implied that I’m not talking about the cathedral and the other tourist attractions. I’m talking about:
High density, mid-rise housing incorporating 5 over 1s (as an aside, that term seems very American to me, but I’m not sure why as it’s a pretty good description of what is meant) providing convenient access to shopping and leisure facilities. Pretty much everything you could conceivably need within a 15 walk.
Thoughtful design of roads, with wide thoroughfares with dedicated bus lanes, for moving traffic, and narrower streets, ideally one-way, for access. As few stroads as possible.
Cycle lanes everywhere. (Admittedly, Eixample would be better if more cycling lanes were physically separated.
Each housing block having enclosed shared spaces where people can build community with their neighbours. (Some may scoff at this, but experience in Britain tends to show that high rises that aren’t luxury developments tend to become shitty places to live, because people don’t get to know their upstairs and downstairs neighbours and as a result a lot more people treat communal areas disrespectfully. That could be a distinctly British problem, I suppose, but I’m not convinced that’s the case.)
Yeah, a lot of the buildings in Eixample are more ornate than they would be if you were building them in bulk, quickly, and I’d probably throw in more parks, too. But the plan is sound, and very achievable.
Just because the US can’t not fuck it up, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for everyone else.
That isn’t even close to what I said :( My point is what you’re describing is based on commie blocks and have had more time to develop. But yes as you pointed out, the US can’t not fuck it up, you are totally correct there, and there are some in America that are better than mine (still expensive junk mini-malls, but more fun to hang out in)
Like, this urban planning was ahead of its time, and you are right about the infrastructure and the lighting, the mid/high rises, but the purpose of communist blocks was quickly built, free housing after the war. If they were built like prisons, those prisons are humanely built. lol. Socialist model of urban planning was ahead of its time.
If you’ve never been to America, you wouldn’t understand what I mean by walking around one of these!
I’m not American, I’m British. Towns and cities all across Europe are filled with “5 over 1s” and similar, and it’s fine, and works well. Just because the US can’t not fuck it up, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for everyone else.
Lemmy.ml user try not to accuse another user of being a Nazi for literally no credible reason challenge: impossible.
We’re a discussion about architecture and urban planning, my dude. Commie blocs solved the homelessness relatively quickly and relatively cheaply. Great. Fantastic. That doesn’t they were best and most ideal solution possible at the time, and it certainly doesn’t mean they’re the best and most ideal solution now.
Now, as it stands, I don’t think commie blocks are that bad, I just felt like pointing out that your arguments seemed somewhat unserious, but in case you’re curious, here are the things I think are non-ideal about commie blocks:
If you’re asking me what I’d prefer instead, I’m thinking something like Eixample.
Your comment is a great example of the growing literacy crisis on the anglo web.
And your alternative to housing built after WWII to save people from homelessness is Sagrada Familia and other Gaudi houses? Delusional.
Yeah, I swiped it all out on the phone, and I accidentally a few words. Sorry, that’s my bad.
I think that when we’re talking about housing, it should perhaps be implied that I’m not talking about the cathedral and the other tourist attractions. I’m talking about:
Yeah, a lot of the buildings in Eixample are more ornate than they would be if you were building them in bulk, quickly, and I’d probably throw in more parks, too. But the plan is sound, and very achievable.
That isn’t even close to what I said :( My point is what you’re describing is based on commie blocks and have had more time to develop. But yes as you pointed out, the US can’t not fuck it up, you are totally correct there, and there are some in America that are better than mine (still expensive junk mini-malls, but more fun to hang out in)
Like, this urban planning was ahead of its time, and you are right about the infrastructure and the lighting, the mid/high rises, but the purpose of communist blocks was quickly built, free housing after the war. If they were built like prisons, those prisons are humanely built. lol. Socialist model of urban planning was ahead of its time.
If you’ve never been to America, you wouldn’t understand what I mean by walking around one of these!