- cross-posted to:
- neoliberal@lemmy.world
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- neoliberal@lemmy.world
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Right wing architecture
More right wing architecture
Just one more lane!
Pls bro, just one more 🙏
I swear I can quit any time I want, I just need one more lane and then I’m done
That’s terrible. Use the nide grabber and put that right. Wobbling all over the place right now.
I fucking hate stroads.
I hate it. Feels so restricting. Cant go anywhere without driving, and even driving a block is a huge pain in the ass because of all the traffic and traffic control
That is a lot of gas stations and signs for them
Free market competition 🇺🇸🦅🙏
Social housing typically doesn’t look as good as high-end apartments, but it doesn’t have to look terrible. Here’s some pretty neat looking social housing in south Paris.
It’s kind of the China Town of Paris.
It’s right next to an accessible tram station, has green spaces and social areas spread around, a couple of malls with great independent restaurants right next door. There are cycle lanes all around the place.
If you’re curious, here it is on Google Maps
I’d live here. I only wish there were more neighbourhoods like this.
No comrade, nice looking things are bourgeoisie decadence.
Well, those have been built in a highly industrialized and rich country, not in a developing economy. Social housing in China nowadays looks more like your pictures than the one in the post, let’s keep in mind that that kind of housing is at this point over 50 years old.
Yeah, that’s why I’d like them to build more social housing.
The lifecycle of social housing projects like these, as I understand them, is meant to be that you continue to build them, and as the old ones reach the end of their lifetime (around 60 years?) you demolish them and move the people into the new ones.
In practice, most places are not continuously building them as they should, so many of them are reaching the end of their lives without a plan for where to move people afterwards. This shows a lack of foresight and long-term planning.
Of course, politics are a fickle thing so the latest government can choose to decide that actually, poor people should be punished for the failures of the system and long-term initiatives fail.
Well, the Soviets and China never stopped building socially affordable housing. Turns out it’s a quirk of capitalist regimes leaving people to spend half their income in housing!
Also part of why it looks depressing is because it’s old and poorly maintained.
Just a touch of renovation and the houses start looking way better:
Yep, my building hasn’t had a good amount of care in a while but the one right next to it has recently and it looks just fine.
Meanwhile in famously communist South Korea…
Ah, the beauties of capitalism.
Stayed in an probably illegal Airbnb in a Samsung apartment in Jeju 10 years ago. It was nice. Apartment complexes are not bad. We have to them in beautiful Switzerland too. If the building is well maintained and the surrounding is full of greenery, and local shops, and entertainment, then they are a valid option and I’d prefer them over sprawl and cul-de-sacs.
Sure, in the end a building like this is going to be what it is. I personally live on the inside of my apartment, so that’s what I care most about. If I owned a house and spent a bunch of time looking at it from the garden, I would care more.
edit spelling
South korea is speedrunning into a scify dystopia
take notice of your capitalist car park next time you go to big box centre. more depressing than housing
Copying and pasting an old comment i made:
Honestly, commieblocks arent that bad. Most of the pictures of them are cherry picked to be the unmaintained, dirty ones, and are exclusively taken in gloomy weather. The houses on the inside are usually good quality as well (though likely not well maintained anymore).
Hell, if you just painted them colourfully, they’d look nice.
Toss some rooftop park/garden/green spaces up there as well and they’d be pretty damn great, as far as skyscrapers go.
The blocks usually have a lot of green areas (that’s why most of the pictures are from winter, they look gloomier). They were designed to be lived in.
Looks like the ones in the picture are already surrounded by green spaces - they’re probably already pretty great as far as skyscrapers go.
Dumb question, I know some places where they build quick and ugly and a few decades later they just remodelled the façade to make it pretty an modern. but those are small residential buildings in places where I lived. do you know of places where that happened in large projects like the picture?
Our commie blocks in East Europe tend to get colorful when their owners (either the city or the dwelers) decide to insulate the facade, which often happens across a whole district in a short time. Random image to ilustrate.
Such a lovely place to live, a bit of green, colourful housing, and I will assume it is a walkable place
And that is just the façade, some places renew the façade every few decades to keep the place fresh and desirable.
the benefits of high density urban design are also amazing and I assume I do not need to list them here. this is lemmy and I just need to wait for the appropriate autist to list them all.
And how is it controversial to build housing for everyone, instead of some pretty houses for those who can afford it.
These blocks look very different as a person on the street. They mostly only look bad from above where you can see all of them together
We have some burtalist apartment buildings in Minneapolis. They’re generally desirable apartments
Nah man. I lived in Russia most of my life and commie blocks are as depressing as they look on those pictures. You have a point that some are poorly maintained, but that’s not some, that’s most of the country. Just a mass of featureless grey blocks. Dirty, ugly and inescapable. About them being good quality on the inside is debatable. The flats are small and I could hear my neighbors all the time. Some of them used to be painted, but the paint is peeling off, only hylighting the ugliness. There’s very little upside to them in the modern world.
I live in Russia nearly all my life, and I can tell it really is a matter of proper maintancnce. Many cities do a very poor job keeping these buildings in a good shape, but when they do, it looks fairly good. Look through the comment section for examples, they are real, I’ve seen quite a few.
Not to mention European neighbors where they are still common, but due maintenance makes them look actually good.
The sound issues are fair, but there are ways to limit them.
is a matter of proper maintenance to an extend. You can paint a box, it’ll still be a box, just not as grey. And let’s not pretend Russia maintains anything. In Moscow maybe, but most of the country looks just as depressing as shown on the picture in OP. Our government never has money for fixing old infrastructure, only for war. My point is, panel houses don’t have to look so ugly anymore. But people here are arguing like it’s the only alternative to homelessness. Live in ugly, cramped panel houses or nowhere at all.
I don’t think the point is about present.
More like, “back when these things were built, government had to build the most resource-efficient and mass-constructed housing, responding to a surge in demand for urban living due to industrialization”
It was either this or leaving people without any place to live.
Sure, modern situation is different, and we can have nicer homes.
When the coops that own and manage these houses hire creative architects for renovation, you can these buildings to be much less bleak looking. They mostly miss coloured paint. The gray plaster they used is what makes them look shit.
Otherwise these buildings often have quite clever design in regards to natural light for all flats as well as relative quietness even when next to busy roads.
Photographing them in summer also helps
this is more to do with it being in moscow and built some 50 years ago, not with it being “left-wing” (whatever that means). Social housing around the world can look much better than this
Also seriously who gives a shit about how it looks, it’s a place to live. I’ll take one of those apartments please, I can’t afford to buy a fucking condo for $500K, and that’s all they build now because that’s what makes them most money. So tired of this bullshit.
Looks matter because it’s a place to live. Many commieblocks deal with that just fine by having the green space around them though. I kind of like the look of some of them though - solid, practical, maintainable. Some of the modern builds in my local city look more like temporary emergency shelters - like the people staying there don’t belong.
500k? Dang that’s a bargain!
How the hell is this “left wing architecture”?? Apartment buildings have looked like this all around the world for at least 50 years.
Any housing that isn’t exclusively for billionaires is ‘left wing’.
It’s left-wing in that it provides cheap housing for many. It also looks very brutalist and is reminiscent of USSR housing blocks.
It’s “left wing” because the buildings are identical, because they were built through central planning.
The only thing more depressing than left wing architecture is right wing architecture
Looks like concept art from Anno 2070… And I don’t mean that in a good way.
As someone who loves watching megaprojects, it is so sad that it is mostly a right wing vanity thing.
A spot in one of those for a family in Berlin costs 650.000€ because of how great the non-communist economy is doing at creating affordable housing. That is 14 times for median salary before taxes, or 21 times after taxes. https://www.immobilienscout24.de/expose/165160850
in prague, it is 2 monthly median salaries per squared meter. there was a lot wrong with the fucking “communism”, but accessible housing was not it.
this post is a work of some ignorant teenage edgelord, the title does not even have anything to do with the screenshot.
Lots of trees there. That place still looks pretty nice in the summer.
A quick web search had someone say it’s Yaroslavsky District, Moscow and while I’m not entirely convinced (having trouble matching the photo to a map), in the summer it will probably look similar to the photo of Yaroslavsky District on Wikipedia.
We lived in similar housing back in the 80’s, and the surrounding area was nothing but lovely greenery and forests, by design. Then the 00’s came around and they privatized everything, sold the apartments, and cut down all the greenery. I don’t know why, it’s just something they do, like, they had to create low income jobs somehow and decided the best way is to equip parks&rec with chainsaws and just go around and cut shit down to validate their own existence, so they could show their amazing statistics.
Now everything is barren concrete, and it looks way more like actual grey communist dystopia than it did before. Go figure.
privatized everything
Capitalism will do that. It sucks.
That’s so fucked up. I hate when asshole cut down trees.
and cut down all the greenery
After visiting Russia some time ago and comparing old pictures, a lot of the trees were cut simply to make parking spots. Most people didn’t own a car in the USSR because public transit and walk ability were prioritized, and so these areas weren’t designed with parking in mind. When the Soviet Union was antidemocratically dissolved, public transit was gutted and cars were heavily publicized, so most families who could afford it ended up buying some old car, and they needed parking spots.
I’m not sure what “left wing architecture” means. Because, to me, this looks like the sort of thing you have to do when the population grows like crazy. Those tend to be areas where women have little education and little power.
This is historically because urbanization. It may look to you because sexism or whatever, but that’s because you see sexism everywhere.
Are you saying the USSR did not educate their women? (As a means to further population growth?)
Those tend to be areas where women have little education
By the 1960s, the USSR had more women engineers than the rest of the planet combined, and some 45% of the PhDs in chemistry in the 1970s were awarded to women. Mistakes were made in the USSR, for sure, but equal access to education between women and men was not one of them.
I’ve seen this posted before. Important points to consider: Imperial Russia had a housing shortage in the cities due to industrialization occurring and the existing housing was often of poor quality. According to one source: “In major cities, a significant portion of housing consisted of barracks, basements, semi-basements, dormitory-style rooms, dugouts, and semi-dugouts.”
Then WW1 hit followed by the civil war and housing construction essentially stopped with some housing destroyed in the war. Then in the interwar period, priority was given to industrial construction in the USSR, resulting in low housing construction volumes, with a significant share consisting of temporary housing. Rapid industrialization and increasing population shifts to cities increasing demand. Then WW2 hit and huge amounts of existing housing were destroyed in the fighting.
So the USSR was in tight spot and did the best they could with limited time and resources which for most Russians ended up being a huge improvement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_construction_in_the_Soviet_Union
Most of the issues with this era of housing projects stem from the fact that the plans for upkeep were abandoned. Most of the buildings themselves were solid and very modern and with the right maintenance they would’ve been in much better condition than they are now.
The buildings that have received that care and attention still look great. Not all the areas were well planned but most of the time they’re fine.
And that’s without constraining that judgement to Russia specifically. Many of the countries that built like this were very ambitious but the ambition faltered with time as the resources allocated to maintenance were used for other things.
My mom still lives in one of the “socialist cubes” that were built in Finland in the late 70’s (and they’re literally the same kind of design; we actually exported concrete elements to eg. the DDR and others for building more socialist cubes).
The building was kinda bleak back in the 80’s and 90’s, although at least it was painted and not just grey like some of the more egregious ones, but the exterior has been renovated over the years, the windows were redone, plumbing got upgraded, the balconies were all torn down and rebuilt, it’s been painted, etc etc. It’s still affordable to live in even after all that, and it looks nice too. And the floor plan is actually meant for humans to live in unlike 99% of modern developments in Finland which are meant to produce the maximum amount of income for some giant construction conglomerate, so the apartments end up eg. being shaped like long tubes with one window at the end, or with the entry being in the kitchen, which is the same space as the living room.
resources allocated to maintenance were used for other things.
C’est la vie
Funny how the same people who do that blame the ideology that built the apartments and made those plans huh
Semi relatedly, there’s some new blocks in my city that are both ugly and expensive to live in. It’s this soulless, almost corporate feeling type of architecture. Doesn’t fit into how the city looks at all. They had the opportunity to decide whether to build affordable housing or something pretty that aesthetically fits into the city and picked neither. No doubt the shareholders shed a tear of joy.
