|
Yes, but being shittily implemented/managed is not inherent to the idea of public housing. It works fine in many other places. I admit though, that my confidence that future public housing in the US won't suffer the same problems is not high.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:People basically hate living in huge tower blocks of public housing, because nowhere ever puts aside enough money to upkeep them, so unkempt empty space and broken lifts make them a mugger's paradise. If Singapore can do it so can we. Also public=\ for the poors..
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:People basically hate living in huge tower blocks of public housing, because nowhere ever puts aside enough money to upkeep them, so unkempt empty space and broken lifts make them a mugger's paradise. Donteat01 has an excellent two-part episode on public housing in the US and Europe, and why it fundamentally failed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqJbE1bvdgo
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:People basically hate living in huge tower blocks of public housing, because nowhere ever puts aside enough money to upkeep them, so unkempt empty space and broken lifts make them a mugger's paradise. That and US housing of all types is extremely shoddily built for maximum profit. Of course no one wants to live in dense housing when you can hear your neighbors breathe. Say what you will about the ugliness of Eastern Bloc brutalist housing but I stayed in one for a few weeks when I was in Prague and that thing was solidly built.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Donteat01 has an excellent two-part episode on public housing in the US and Europe, and why it fundamentally failed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqJbE1bvdgo I haven't watch the Youtube but my guess is that the US used it to only house low-income residents, which became a poverty concentrator which led to its own problems. While Europe did mixed density AND mixed income? FYI if you want the ur-case of Super Gentrification, Look to Barnsby, England.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I haven't watch the Youtube but my guess is that the US used it to only house low-income residents, which became a poverty concentrator which led to its own problems. While Europe did mixed density AND mixed income? yeah, most social housing prior to the mid 20th century in the united states was fairly low rise, one or two stories at most social housing is a middle class thing in europe as well because it can be difficult just to get sufficient affordable housing, where the united states has plenty of land with light regulation meaning that housing is ample and relatively cheap. so in the united states it is entirely a problem with inability to pay, where in europe there's more of a problem of availability even for people who can afford decent housing i just scrolled around randomly until i found this example of low rise rural/suburban social housing in the united states https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3992621,-78.9713802,368m here's another example but i can't tell if this is actual government housing or just cheap apartments. ideally it should be difficult to tell the difference https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7897212,-88.290052,245a,35y,1.81h Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Apr 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
i know this isn't the climate change thread but no we categorically do not have plenty of land we're destroying the topsoil of the farmland we have, warming will drive acute climate events that destroy whole crop cycles, and overall warming will render much of our current arable land unusable. at the same time we need to be growing trillions of trees as part of the drawdown we need to *shrink* from the existing land-use footprint. if america is special its because of how much we need to retract and consolidate, not how little we need to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
We're overfarming, so solve that and you've made significant changes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 08:48
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:i know this isn't the climate change thread but no we categorically do not have plenty of land maybe it's just me but i think there's a difference between the amount of land necessary to farm and the amount of land necessary to build a house. could be wrong though
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Replacing golf courses with medium-density subsidized housing is the way to go, IMO. Get those property values for the neighboring SFHs down. Golf courses suck rear end. Look at all these loving golf courses in SF and nearby. I circled the land used by each of those golf courses in red, also one driving range which I circled in blue.  What a lovely use of space, a hobby that only the rich can generally afford. fermun fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Apr 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:This. There needs to be some kind of stopgap measures in place to ensure that the negative externalities caused by new development don't destroy the livelihoods of existing residents. Unlike complaints about insufficient parking or detriment to "neighborhood character", families are at risk of serious harm from unplanned displacement due to rising rents. That said, rent control doesn't address the housing crisis and will leave everyone worse off if not coupled with public and private development to meet the needs of those looking for homes. Plus, if older apartment buildings aren't meeting the needs of those living in (and looking to live in) the city, there does need to be a way to replace them, but I have no idea what that looks like or how it could be done humanely if residents don't want to move. Displacement happens whether or not you build new apartments. Increasing housing alleviates displacement rather than causing it, but new builds and displacement have the same causes so tend to correlate. Strong tenants rights, pre existing public housing and rent control can slow it down and are all good things, but ultimately the answer is to build more houses in the areas where people want to live (this includes those wealthy near inner city SFH neighbourhoods where these discussions never even occur because building multifamily is almost unthinkable to the locals).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
You can see this very directly in London actually due to it's history. Lots of social/non profit housing was built at the beginning of the 20th century. Many of them were in areas which are now close to huge numbers of high quality jobs and services and are extremely desirable places to live, and have also seen minimal increases in density since they were built. The lack of development has done nothing to stop displacement. There are some social tenancies left in some of them, but right to buy is killing them off slowly. Building new social housing does let people stay in an area, and building new market rate housing let's middle class people stay instead of solely the super rich
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 06:46
|
|
|
fermun posted:Golf courses suck rear end. Look at all these loving golf courses in SF and nearby. I circled the land used by each of those golf courses in red, also one driving range which I circled in blue. Given the zoning of the surrounding areas, I'm skeptical of how much the city would gain from replacing parts of parks (even if they're parts of parks used mostly by rich people) with a bunch of single family homes that cost $2.5M at minimum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 08:12
|
|
|
florida lan posted:Given the zoning of the surrounding areas, I'm skeptical of how much the city would gain from replacing parts of parks (even if they're parts of parks used mostly by rich people) with a bunch of single family homes that cost $2.5M at minimum. yeah they should zone them as high density mixed use and build as much public housing as the city can get funding for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 09:58
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:maybe it's just me but i think there's a difference between the amount of land necessary to farm and the amount of land necessary to build a house. could be wrong though when you're broke a dollar menu cheeseburger and a four course five star meal are *both* out of your price range
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 13:42
|
|
|
I wonder if there's any value in the government once again becoming a non-profit lender for housing (i.e. what Savings and Loans used to be). Say, ten families take out a group mortgage from the government, build a mid-rise and collectively own it (can't sell an apartment for 5-10 years, to prevent flipping). The cost of direct non-profit construction is far less than just purchasing from a developer. Combined with zoning for such products, you end up with a motivation to build that would offset any rent-control capital flight issues and give tenants a significant level of co-operative control over their properties. This doesn't solve the issue of public housing, but rent control and direct state intervention deal with those problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:I wonder if there's any value in the government once again becoming a non-profit lender for housing (i.e. what Savings and Loans used to be). Say, ten families take out a group mortgage from the government, build a mid-rise and collectively own it (can't sell an apartment for 5-10 years, to prevent flipping). The cost of direct non-profit construction is far less than just purchasing from a developer. Combined with zoning for such products, you end up with a motivation to build that would offset any rent-control capital flight issues and give tenants a significant level of co-operative control over their properties. the FHA has a similar program which is where federal loans for mortages can be applied to small multifamily buildings https://www.fha.com/fha_article?id=904
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
Seems like the bigger issue is that small multifamily buildings are mostly illegal. Also I've read about subsidized/non-profit apartment complexes where the per unit costs were still several hundred thousand, so I'm not sure being not for profit is a panacea there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Seems like the bigger issue is that small multifamily buildings are mostly illegal. Yeah, subsidised/non profit loans don't help if the homes don't exist, it just bids up the price of the ones that do (in a way that might help people on the lower end of the market so it's not the worst idea in the world).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:Yeah, subsidised/non profit loans don't help if the homes don't exist, it just bids up the price of the ones that do (in a way that might help people on the lower end of the market so it's not the worst idea in the world). I meant loans for buying up fallow/underused property and putting up new buildings, to expand supply.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:I wonder if there's any value in the government once again becoming a non-profit lender for housing (i.e. what Savings and Loans used to be). Say, ten families take out a group mortgage from the government, build a mid-rise and collectively own it (can't sell an apartment for 5-10 years, to prevent flipping). The cost of direct non-profit construction is far less than just purchasing from a developer. Combined with zoning for such products, you end up with a motivation to build that would offset any rent-control capital flight issues and give tenants a significant level of co-operative control over their properties. In a way they already are with the low-income tax credit though. Check out the Preservation of Affordable Housing they do this work a lot. Again, the issue we face in America right now is that wealthy and affluent communities will not build and cities are going through a boom period and cannot create enough housing. Rural communities are not desirable right now, so there is a weird crunch. Vancouver I guess has seem some results from their vacancy tax, which is an interesting proposition in certain United States cities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:I meant loans for buying up fallow/underused property and putting up new buildings, to expand supply. There isn't a major issue with funding for new units, the problem is getting permission to actually build them. Perhaps if the funding was specifically linked to building units for social rent it would help with zoning issues but there hasn't been much evidence so far that people are more amenable to poor people moving in next door than they are to marginally less wealthy people doing so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2019 07:03
|
|
|
there's also a problem that buildings are built for profit, and the most profit is obtained by targeting the top of the market rather than the bottom, and so multifamily housing for the poor is very frequently provided by trickle down and aging housing stock rather than new construction. when you do see housing targeting the middle of the market it's usually in the form of cost-cutting tract housing, and rarely new multifamily - in hot markets you're not going to try to make a prospectus work on a parcel of scarce land at a 1% rather than 5% profit, and in cool markets you've likely also got a falling population or some other thing making development difficult
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:there's also a problem that buildings are built for profit, and the most profit is obtained by targeting the top of the market rather than the bottom, and so multifamily housing for the poor is very frequently provided by trickle down and aging housing stock rather than new construction. when you do see housing targeting the middle of the market it's usually in the form of cost-cutting tract housing, and rarely new multifamily - in hot markets you're not going to try to make a prospectus work on a parcel of scarce land at a 1% rather than 5% profit, and in cool markets you've likely also got a falling population or some other thing making development difficult It's true that a market based system won't provide the level of quality of housing for the poor that we would like to see in wealthy cities. Public housing is a great way to fill that gap. However at the moment in many areas it is only legal to build housing for the very rich even incase where a group of middle income (potential) residents could outbid a single rich family. Think of Avenue Road in London or many parts of San Francisco. There are loads of single family homes which could easily be replaced by 6 low rose units without government subsidy if local residents didn't use the law to protect their privilege. Dezoning, public housing, tenants rights etc are all complementary and support the same aims of a abundant, just, low carbon and desgragated housing for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2019 12:28
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:there's also a problem that buildings are built for profit, and the most profit is obtained by targeting the top of the market rather than the bottom, and so multifamily housing for the poor is very frequently provided by trickle down and aging housing stock rather than new construction. when you do see housing targeting the middle of the market it's usually in the form of cost-cutting tract housing, and rarely new multifamily - in hot markets you're not going to try to make a prospectus work on a parcel of scarce land at a 1% rather than 5% profit, and in cool markets you've likely also got a falling population or some other thing making development difficult The highest profit is actually in building things that look luxury but are actually cheaply made enough that they'll fall apart in a few years. There's a particular building not far from me that is basically the epitome of that; it was built extremely recently, marketed as luxury digs, and had insanely expensive apartments for the area. It had a long list of amenities but then if you look at the reviews nickled and dimed the residents as hard as possible, actively resisted giving security deposits back until lawyers got called, and would leave the fancy amenities broken for months at a time. Even when they did work they never worked right, the apartments didn't heat evenly but maintenance just kind of said "deal with it," and the building changed owners constantly. Basically every owner responded to complaints with total silence. Apparently people are constantly moving both in and out as people moving from other parts for a job tend to be all like "oh this looks nice!" then run away screaming the nanosecond their leases are up. That's where the most profit is. Regulations, tenant rights, and actual enforcement of those things prevent such behavior and take a wild guess how hard such things get lobbied against. It's related to all the lovely McMansions that keep cropping up loving everywhere. All appearance, no actual function. Built cheaply, basically guaranteed to not last despite costing absurd amounts of money. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Apr 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
The only foodstuffs I'm consuming today are wheat and barley, brewed and fermented into some sort of alcoholic beverage
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
ShaneMacGowansTeeth posted:The only foodstuffs I'm consuming today are wheat and barley, brewed and fermented into some sort of alcoholic beverage Good, by cutting down on avocado like that you'll be able to afford a house soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Avocado is only dangerous when paired with wheat. He should be careful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
What if housing were built without regard for profit--possibly from discarded avocado pits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:Good, by cutting down on avocado like that you'll be able to afford a house soon. Ive had three figures left in my bank account since the middle of last week, and the first of those numbers was a 1. I ain't ever gonna own a bedsit, let alone a house
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
Insanite posted:What if housing were built without regard for profit--possibly from discarded avocado pits. an entire suburb of shipping container homes
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Seattle considering what to do with municipal golf courses. Given the influence of the golf players in this city, I doubt it'll go anywhere, but I can dream. Maybe they can at least get rid of the senior discount and jack up the standard rates a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Seattle considering what to do with municipal golf courses. Bulldoze them and build public housing on the property plz an thank you
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
what exactly is one bulldozing on a golf course? the trees? the little flags? is there like a deviant art for civil engineers where they photoshop up what they would do with golf courses? edit: pragmatically i'm thinking a row of midrise villas or townhomes right down the fairway, keep the existing trails and use of small EVs edit2: most units have bare essential kitchens but the club house is now a subsidized mess hall that doesn't have to turn a profit so serves healthy food in reasonable proportion sizes StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jun 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:what exactly is one bulldozing on a golf course? the trees? the little flags? Some watering systems too. Again, if it were me, convert some of it into conservation space while creating mixed use housing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Are there already bus-only lanes? Because I can't see how this would work unless the bus always happens to be the first at lights. From a few pages back, but Denver has something similar along Lincoln Street in one particular place where there’s a bus stop before a light, and then the bus has to turn left at the very next light to reach a major bus terminal (Civic Center Station), so for obvious reasons the bus needs to go first to dart across the street unimpeded. The bus stop is right before the light where the right turn lane would be, so the bus is always at the light when the bus light goes on. I believe our upcoming Colfax pseudo-BRT will have similar, and the city has mentioned installing them in other places as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Turn them into parks with some public housing, maybe a library.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 09:12
|
|
|
Kill all golf courses plz and thank you
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:Kill all golf courses plz and thank you (for the record, whenever that time comes, I hope to have my loved ones spend as close to nothing as possible disposing of my corpse) In other news, guess the three unifying characteristics of the neighborhoods with the most appeals against my city's appraisal of their property values: https://twitter.com/scttdvd/status/1137002352811094016 They're the wealthiest, whitest, and the likeliest to oppose multi-family homes
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
the low countries (esp. belgium) is such a miserable desert -source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/five-maps-that-reveal-the-world-s-remaining-wilderness
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 21:38
|
|
