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.
You are probably the only other person on this forum (besides me) who has actually been in some of these homes, to use the term loosely. I don't understand how someone in good conscience could rent a place like some that I have seen.
Well they're providing a need some people want: cheap housing. I've appreciate cheap slightly run-down rentals. The tenants could live elsewhere if they had the money! These slumlords are doing providing their community with a needed good!
Quote:
It's funny that housing projects are supposedly "bad", yet they are really nothing but apartment complexes, where we are all supposed to want to live!
No, no. We want to live on streets of old well-kept row houses or maybe a low rise apartment building not a high rise tower in the park! Though, I can think of a few places where private housing in NYC looks identical to public housing but much more desireable due to the lack of poor people. Here's one (see first view):
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Sure, housing conditions were overcrowded in 1945. More housing needed to built. But what kind? Dense, more transit and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, low density mostly auto-centric neighborhoods? The choice was overwhelming to the latter. Perhaps that was what people wanted, but there was an alternate choice. Could it have been row houses with decent space and shared yards? Garden apartments? High rises? Here are images of two NYC metro developments to house returning veteran's families:
I don't really care for either all that much. The first has shared green space you can't see. Both have done nicely, though the first one is now more expensive. Many other developed countries have chosen more dense post-1945. Their health standards are roughly similar, some even better, than the US.
The first complex was considered "a good place to raise a family", and people at the time flocked to it. If you look at other photos, it has well-landscaped common areas. Second link is Levittown. Both places banned black people...
Well they're providing a need some people want: cheap housing. I've appreciate cheap slightly run-down rentals. The tenants could live elsewhere if they had the money! These slumlords are doing providing their community with a needed good!
No, no. We want to live on streets of old well-kept row houses or maybe a low rise apartment building not a high rise tower in the park! Though, I can think of a few places where private housing in NYC looks identical to public housing but much more desireable due to the lack of poor people. Here's one (see first view):
The first complex was considered "a good place to raise a family", and people at the time flocked to it. If you look at other photos, it has well-landscaped common areas. Second link is Levittown. Both places banned black people...
OK, I see now that your first sentence is sarcasm. (I had already banged out a reply that used some words that might not make it through the filters. Seriously, I have seen some real h-holes, including in Champaign, IL, which isn't even a large city.
A lot of housing projects are not high-rise, especially in smaller cities. The ones in Champaign were generally just one story, with a little courtyard of sorts. Air-conditioned, too; it gets hot in Champaign. While Denver has some high-rises, most all for elderly/disabled, the family housing is all low-rise, usually 1-2 stories.
So were suburbs the only solution to the problem of substandard housing?
Suburbs have been around for over a century. Levittown was rather unique in that it took over a large tract of land that had been held off from development in the 1920's. Logically it should have been largely built out by then. When it was finally open to build, Levitt and his gang made up for lost time.
In the case of both historic row houses and high-rise towers, it is maintenance and safety that is really the deciding factor, not housing form. Cabrini-Green and Pruitt-Igoe didn't look all that different from what is now very desirable condo housing of the same era when it was built--but it was allowed to decay and those who were moved into such housing were basically abandoned to fend for themselves. Similarly, old houses that are owned by landlords who refuse to repair or maintain their properties because they assume they're just slums anyhow are not as desirable as the same kind of house built during the same era to the same density, but maintained by a property owner who repairs and beautifies their property.
I don't think dirt floors were found very often in urban apartment buildings--at worst, you only found them on one floor.
In the case of both historic row houses and high-rise towers, it is maintenance and safety that is really the deciding factor, not housing form. Cabrini-Green and Pruitt-Igoe didn't look all that different from what is now very desirable condo housing of the same era when it was built--but it was allowed to decay and those who were moved into such housing were basically abandoned to fend for themselves. Similarly, old houses that are owned by landlords who refuse to repair or maintain their properties because they assume they're just slums anyhow are not as desirable as the same kind of house built during the same era to the same density, but maintained by a property owner who repairs and beautifies their property.
Agree, though picking out Cabrini-Green and Pruitt-Igoe you've chosen the worst of the high rise public housing projects. Public housing tower in the park that got maintenance remains functional, though it's a stretch to call it good.
The point is to illustrate the worst-case scenario. Plenty of public housing is pretty nice--but the difference is generally in maintenance and attention, not just to the buildings but to those who live there.
I don't think dirt floors were found very often in urban apartment buildings--at worst, you only found them on one floor.
Well, and that makes it much better, LOL! J/K!
Actually, the house I referenced that had the dirt floor was in Omaha. In Omaha, the ghetto, like everywhere else in the city, is mainly single family homes.
Actually, the house I referenced that had the dirt floor was in Omaha. In Omaha, the ghetto, like everywhere else in the city, is mainly single family homes.
^^My husband does not recognize the neighborhood. It looks fairly typical to me, but there are many neighborhoods with small, one story houses. He grew up near the University of Omaha, now Universiy of Nebraska at Omaha. 72nd St. was once the western boundary of Omaha.
Apparently a lot of houses burned down or were damaged in several riots in the 60s. According to the book, Omaha had just recently (meaning in the 60s) tightened up its building codes.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 07-05-2012 at 01:39 PM..
Here's another chance in culture. Children are less unsupervised than before:
When George Thomas was eight he walked everywhere. It was 1926 and his parents were unable to afford the fare for a tram, let alone the cost of a bike and he regularly walked six miles to his favourite fishing haunt without adult supervision. Fast forward to 2007 and Mr Thomas's eight-year-old great-grandson Edward enjoys none of that freedom. He is driven the few minutes to school, is taken by car to a safe place to ride his bike and can roam no more than 300 yards from home.
[LEFT]
Read more: How children lost the right to roam in four generations | Mail Online
Interesting map, too.
[/LEFT]
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.
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.
