• Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I understand the point. But France has done this and ended up with giant ghettos filled with si much crime that no emergency services whatsoever go there anymore.

    In the US, they built giant housing projects like this where poverty was concentrated and the same thing happened. Crime installed itself in those projects and these neighbourhoods became dangerous ghettos.

    Picture 1 is not the solution you think you want.

    The condo building where I live is not so big. And it was built with 25% dedicated to social housing where poor families and underpaid workers can live comfortably in an apartment unit as big as my condo unit, which I paid nearly $400k CAD, for the price of about $650 CAD per month. This allows them to integrate with everyone else and live with everyone else and near where all the jobs are.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The world will never recover until poverty is seen not as a character flaw, but as a failure of society itself to provide for the most vulnerable.

    • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They wouldn’t be vulnerable if they just overcame their own biology and lifetime of trauma. Its that simple, they arent trying hard enough.

        • cooopsspace@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Literally people born with or contracting disabilities that leave them permanently destitute due to you not being able to eat or house yourself without work you can’t do because your disabled.

  • spread@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate how when there is any picture of Soviet blocks it’s always shot in autumn or winter when it’s overcast. I live in an ex Soviet country and when these bad boys are maintained they can outperform new apartments, be it in functionality, amenities or price.

    • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      always shot in autumn or winter when it’s overcast.

      To me this adds a lot to the charm. I’d love to live there (at least for some time)!

  • Cynetri (he/any)@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    never fails to amaze me how “progressive” types do a complete 180 as soon as someone mentions solving the homeless problem by giving them homes

    edit: i rest my case

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think “progressives” have any issue with housing the homeless. The issue is where.

      Go to a conservative (or indeed any) neighbourhood and tell them you’ll be building 200 apartments nearby to house rough sleepers, see how that goes down.

      Most homeless are invisible to us anyway. They hold down jobs, they have gym memberships, they just sleep in their car, or on a mate’s sofa every so often. Nobody would have a problem with them moving in nearby.

      It’s the aggressive beggars, addicts, and shitting in shop doorways (and these three are the same person) that nobody wants anywhere near them. These are who most people think of when they hear the word “homeless”. Most of them need more treatment than just a roof. We don’t have enough of that either.

      I’ve no issue with my taxes helping all these people. I’m happy to pay tax to reduce the chances of me personally being robbed by somebody in desperate poverty.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t get people that have such a visceral reaction to apartments (the horror). What they write is frankly hilarious how they think. Right up there with what they write about transit (ohhh noooo) and electric stoves [sobbing noises].

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s a pretty big spectrum though. On the one hand you have people in suburbs or in-city suburbs complaining about not building the occasional apartment building, essentially because they’re scared of poor people, but then on the other hand you have people living in dense desirable mid sized cities watching them get manhattanized and have their relatively dense yet still pleasant row houses get torn to build rows of ugly skyscrapers that block sunlight from even reaching street level.

      The shift of housing from being predominantly individually owned to being parts of major buildings has also come along with the corporatization of real estate, where individuals have less choice, less freedom, and are in many many cases, are being actively exploited by for profit landlords and real estate developers.

      Yes, we need to density and build more apartments but people on the left these days who I normally agree with are so laser focused on building housing at all costs that they don’t even realize that they’re racing to the bottom. By today’s standards Jane Jacobs, basically the founder of the entire modern urbanism movement, would be a NIMBY just because she advocated for making sure that cities remain livable rather than just building at all costs.

      Let’s build way more low and mid rise apartment buildings, and let’s build way more transit so that cities other than just the major ones are livable without a car, let’s ban airbnb, and let’s severely tax real estate and landlord profits to prevent them from hoarding supply. And yeah we’re gonna have to build some high rises, but let’s not pretend like replacing all of our individual housing with towers is universally a great thing.

    • Kichae@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not explicitly, maybe, but implicitly, absolutely, and in multiple ways:

      • Supporting the system that creates one over the other
      • Having ‘bootstrap’ attitudes about the poor
      • Worrying about property value over utilization
      • Complaining about the homeless rather than the lack of action on housing
      • Voting against people who run on public housing

      In so, so many ways, people say they prefer the latter over the former. Usually just with the caveat that the homeless people also be invisible.

  • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The USSR didn’t do much good but those apartment buildings are definitely good. I used to live in a soviet apartment building and the funny thing about that was that every wall was a load bearing wall since all of them could hold up everything. They were thick as hell and fully concrete.

    • monk@lemmy.unboiled.info
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Every wall was a wall and not a cardboard decoration of a wall

      FTFY. Not all of them were load-bearing, mind you, they were just proper walls made of wall.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Literally though. And there’s a whole practice of hostile architecture that makes it harder and more uncomfortable to be homeless.

      • Obi@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The point of hostile architecture isn’t to solve homelessness, just to send them to the next block/town over (not saying you don’t understand that, just pointing it out).

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wonder if hostile architecture also kills people. Increasing exposure to cold and reducing opportunities to rest doesn’t seem good for your chances for survival. I guess that would solve homelessness, but in the worst most morbid way possible.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re absolutely right in your suspicion. Like so many “let’s punish the poor and vulnerable so they’ll stop being poor and vulnerable” policies that people think are just a “righteous” inconvenience, hostile architecture DOES kill people.

            It’s social murder just so the more fortunate don’t have to look at the consequences of an unjust system.

  • w2qw@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This more because of the local planning in a lot of western countries. Authoritarian countries force housing through much easier

      • knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Depending on how one defines homelessness, China has either a very tiny homeless population or an extremely large one. Compared to other countries, there very few vagrants: people living on the streets of China’s cities without means of support. But if one counts the people who migrated to cities without a legal permit (hukou), work as day laborers without job security or a company dormitory, and live in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions on the edge of cities, there are nearly 300 million homeless

        The source of your source