- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
They’re called commieblocks if they’re affordable to the average person. If not, they’re “highrise apartments”
I live in a city with neighbourhoods built during Socialism, they’re spacious, full of greenery and with important services within walkable/bikeable distance. Meanwhile we have new “urban villas”, which are drab concrete boxes with apartments that have bizzare floorplans and seem to be built for money laundering purposes.
drab concrete boxes with apartments that have bizzare floorplans and seem to be built for money laundering purposes.
I am so happy I’m not alone seeing it. Modern “development” is such a massive scam, in every country it seems like. It’s the new equivalent of logging or mining barons- they buy up land, build shit on it, sell it overpriced, wash their hands and move on to the next project with little regard for long term urban city planning. They are creating forced gentrification.
Soviet development that was driven purely by economic considerations tends to have all the issues of modern development. Well, except car centric planning, but we know why that wasn’t a consideration ever.
Apartment complexes that didn’t focus just on economy, tended to be way better. And that is missing from modern considerations almost always.
Still, there’s a reason pre-Soviet areas to this day remain some of the most sought out ones.
I hate our society’s fixation with ugly utilitarianism. We could be making beautiful things for all of us
They’re too hard to regulate. Grey square boxes are good for the poor! You’ll see! Trust us. We’re totally not stupid
Funny enough, despite the ugly aesthetics, there is a great sense of community in social housing.
in soviet russia, apartments block you
Who could’ve guessed, low-cost housing doesn’t look fancy!
lists one way of doing a thing “This is the only way of doing that thing!!”
American suburbia.
Especially in the rust belt
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.
500k? Dang that’s a bargain!
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.
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.
Are you saying the USSR did not educate their women? (As a means to further population growth?)
This is historically because urbanization. It may look to you because sexism or whatever, but that’s because you see sexism everywhere.
On the picture: hundreds of flats with individual windows and balcony
Oh no, giving hundreds of families a balcony, how terribile! What’s next: non-shared bathrooms and kitchens?
Meanwhile in famously communist South Korea…
South korea is speedrunning into a scify dystopia
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
Why is this right wing or left wing housing?
I guess you can maybe make an argument that this is centralized planning, trying to make the best use of the land available and that right-wing would be pure chaos where the market decides what’s going on. On so you’d have sprawl next to Mansions next to slums, next to McDonald’s, and no parks, and every single tiny piece of land has a building on it, and it all must be fully utilized trying make money in some capitalism way?
Honestly, it doesn’t seem the worst way to do it from a housing density standpoint. Yes, we all want the standalone suburb house or some spot in the countryside, but that’s not the world we live in. For high density housing, this doesn’t seem that bad. Each building has a balcony and overlooks a park and has fresh air and sunshine… How do you do this better?
or is it about equality? Every unit here is equal and therefore bad? That seems a positive in my eyes. Is that really the difference here? There aren’t the ultra poor and the mega rich all mixed in together… Where the poor are in slums and the Richer mansions, is that right wing architecture?
What’s the best way to build high density housing? Tall buildings surrounded by Parks seems to be the most optimal way, right? What am I missing here? The buildings aren’t pretty enough?
More like capitalist architecture…
Edit: I’d rather see little communities of tiny houses with central services like a little bodega, laundry-mats, parks, greenways, etc. within walking/biking distances.
“Dumb commies, they think this is better than owning your own houses and renting them out so they don’t have to work? Savages, let them live in cardboard boxes.” / the bourgeoisie
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:
Ugh. Disgusting.
Give me a single structure on a plot of land, 10ft from my neighbours walls, and a lawn to maintain, any day I live for the additional costs on the place I never spend the best hours of my day in. Worth every gallon of commute fuel. My brain is so aerodynamic.
This, but unironically. People suck, give me distance. I’ll let the lawn die.
If you live out in the country you can just mow a meadow
Please don’t, critters live in them thar meadows
Moving to a countryside can give you both decent enough isolation and teach you to reconnect with others in a more healthy way
I like how living in the countryside lets me disconnect from others in a more healthy way. I live in the suburbs now due to supporting family, but would love to be back in a residence clearly disconnected from anyone outside my household. It doesn’t even have to be that far as long as there is separation due to natural barriers like dense foliage or elevation changes.
So, don’t live in a city.
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.
