Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-20-2018, 09:45 PM
 
10,222 posts, read 19,210,835 times
Reputation: 10894

Advertisements

Why would they protect a steel scaffolding? That's getting ridiculous. Next they'll declare the Bayonne NJ Tank Farm a National Historic Site, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2018, 06:10 PM
 
13,005 posts, read 18,906,017 times
Reputation: 9252
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineman View Post
Projects were/are public housing and were commonly referred to as "instant slums."
That's what some said about the Levittown development in Long Island in the 1940's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2018, 11:46 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,865 posts, read 10,525,805 times
Reputation: 5504
Quote:
Originally Posted by inquisitive2 View Post
Years ago large apartment complexes used to be called “projects” /“ghettos” and if the economy starts to decline we’ll end up with many across the United States.

Many of the apartment buildings have individually owned units. I own an apartment in a lovely building that was built to high quality standards and has nice amenities in a central area. Even if it declines in relative price as it ages, this building will never be a slum. It isn't bare bones worker housing. It is a radically different animal from a "project", all they have in common is both being urban housing. It won't ever be overly neglected because owners want to protect their investments and keep care of their common spaces.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2018, 07:50 PM
 
Location: ohio
3,551 posts, read 2,532,396 times
Reputation: 4405
Maybe in some areas, but where I live this is what happened.

Years ago many large apartment complexes were very upscale and classy, often the residents were singles and young professionals. This occured because there was great demand for such places during these times, the 1960s 70s and 80s. My city had maybe a half dozen "projects" and hundreds of nice apartment complexes. Many of these former nice places have turned into ghettos as times changed and areas declined.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2018, 12:40 AM
 
Location: 404
3,006 posts, read 1,492,842 times
Reputation: 2599
Modern midrises seem more cookie cutter than the blank glass towers. I don't have the budget to live anywhere trendy, so not my problem, but I wonder how much future and what future is in those blocks of bland. They are a couple floors too tall for stairclimbing and the roofs are flat. They could have floors removed and new pitched roofs added, or they may become just more semi-abandoned slums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2018, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
15,218 posts, read 10,312,234 times
Reputation: 32198
Where I live most apartment building are 3 stories and have multiple buildings so they don't have to put in an elevator (which I believe is required above 3 floors). There are a few high rise buildings in the area but I have heard nothing but complaints from the people who live there especially about the parking. I've never lived in a high rise but I have lived in a few apartments before buying my own house last year.


Unless it was super well insulated I would never do it again. Between the neighbors with their sound system and bass which reverberated through my unit to the upstairs neighbors who walked like they were 400 pounds wearing cement shoes to all the cooking smells, no thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2018, 01:57 AM
Status: "From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )" (set 7 days ago)
 
4,640 posts, read 13,919,105 times
Reputation: 4052
Limitless literally. How far can they go with hosting people? And to think of Planet Earth records. At least thousands in each building. Well beyond 50 floors, extremely modern, and having us remember that any infinite Architecture event is possible. Multinationals friendly with some dominant monopolies(Dubai UAE, New York City USA, Hong Kong China), and unknown background hidden exotic treasures (Busan South Korea, Panama City Panama, Seoul South Korea, Mumbai India, Moscow Russia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tial_buildings
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2018, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Where the heart is...
4,927 posts, read 5,314,290 times
Reputation: 10674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman View Post
That's not really true. There's currently record-breaking construction of large apartment buildings (50+ units) across the country and only a small percentage of them are affordable to low- or even middle-income people. And pretty much none of them are "projects" in the way you're describing.
Well, I suppose it would depend on where one lives (it is however occurring in some areas of the country) but if one is able to qualify for a Section 8 housing voucher the possibilities are endless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by engineman View Post
Projects were/are public housing and were commonly referred to as "instant slums".

Attitude of many residents was "I don't own it so what do I care?"
I can't imagine what this might feel like after one has invested their money in owning an apartment or condo in a luxury high rise, in a desirable and expensive area. Like it or not...what becomes of their investment regarding appreciation of said property?

Just saying...

July 26, 2014

Poor families use 'supervouchers' to rent in city's priciest buildings

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...iest-buildings

Section 8 Housing Recipients Live in Luxury Apartments for FREE With “personal wine storage” & “massage room” Courtesy of Taxpayers

https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ht...p=mss&ei=UTF-8

Thanks to Federal Assistance, Low-Income Americans Live in Luxury Apartments in Chicago
https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/09/...ts-in-chicago/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2018, 11:58 AM
 
Location: New York NY
5,521 posts, read 8,769,797 times
Reputation: 12738
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeIsWhere... View Post

I can't imagine what this might feel like after one has invested their money in owning an apartment or condo in a luxury high rise, in a desirable and expensive area. Like it or not...what becomes of their investment regarding appreciation of said property?

Just saying...

July 26, 2014

Poor families use 'supervouchers' to rent in city's priciest buildings

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...iest-buildings

Section 8 Housing Recipients Live in Luxury Apartments for FREE With “personal wine storage” & “massage room” Courtesy of Taxpayers

https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ht...p=mss&ei=UTF-8

Thanks to Federal Assistance, Low-Income Americans Live in Luxury Apartments in Chicago
https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/09/...ts-in-chicago/
Some biases on exhibit here

Bias 1: Poor people are inherently terrible to have as neighbors. Well, no. They're not. Criminals are terrible neighbors, crackheads are terrible neighbors, wild unsupervised kids are terrible neighbors. But just not having money doesn't make any of that automatically true. And anyone who has been around the block a few times knows that there are certainly affluent buildings and neighborhoods where only one or two trashy people can make life terrible for their neighbors. The focus should be on behavior, not income.

Bias 2: The government has no business enabling the poor to live in upscale neighborhoods. This is actually a smart move --as far as it can be done-- because the short-term costs to society are far less than the long-term costs of leaving poor families in areas of concentrated poverty. Much recent research has show that poor kids who move to affluent neighborhoods when they're young have far better life outcomes than they otherwise would. So government spending on getting the poor into better neighborhoods is a smart move, though it's often strongly opposed by many middle- and upper-middle class residents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2018, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Louisiana to Houston to Denver to NOVA
16,508 posts, read 26,308,869 times
Reputation: 13293
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineman View Post
Projects were/are public housing and were commonly referred to as "instant slums".

Attitude of many residents was "I don't own it so what do I care?"
That's what I'd think If I didn't know what I was talking about either.
The attitude of let's throw thousands of poor people into a building and still render them less social services and opportunities than "other" people and let's collectively act surprised when it turns into an incubator of crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:21 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top