I’m not American, I’m British. Towns and cities all across Europe are filled with “5 over 1s” and similar, and it’s fine, and works well. Just because the US can’t not fuck it up, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for everyone else.
Solving homelessness isn’t aesthetically pleasing enough? I know a certain GERMAN political party that agrees with your sentiment…
Lemmy.ml user try not to accuse another user of being a Nazi for literally no credible reason challenge: impossible.
We’re a discussion about architecture and urban planning, my dude. Commie blocs solved the homelessness relatively quickly and relatively cheaply. Great. Fantastic. That doesn’t they were best and most ideal solution possible at the time, and it certainly doesn’t mean they’re the best and most ideal solution now.
Now, as it stands, I don’t think commie blocks are that bad, I just felt like pointing out that your arguments seemed somewhat unserious, but in case you’re curious, here are the things I think are non-ideal about commie blocks:
People tend to prefer “human scale” architecture in places that are supposed to be comfortable and large clusters of high rise buildings tend to make people feel small.
They require steel and concrete to build, which is a concern in terms of carbon footprint, whereas 5 over 1s and similarly sized buildings can get away with using wooden frame construction.
High rises cost more per occupant to maintain than a similarly constructed mid rise, as a general rule.
The need for access to lighting, etc. means that the buildings must be spaced a fair distance apart, so the effective footprint still ends up being similar to a wider-based mid rise bulding. And while this does allow for green space, it’s green space that has to be kept low (so as not to interfere with the lower floors) and needs constant maintenance, so it tends to be fairly bland.
The physical separation between the blocks and the reliance on public transport to reach facilities tends to promote social isolation in a similar way to suburbs.
High rises mean that the vast majority of the occupants must either rely of lifts (and there are never enough working lifts) or be able-bodied and fit.
If you’re asking me what I’d prefer instead, I’m thinking something like Eixample.
I’m not American, I’m British. Towns and cities all across Europe are filled with “5 over 1s” and similar, and it’s fine, and works well. Just because the US can’t not fuck it up, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for everyone else.
Lemmy.ml user try not to accuse another user of being a Nazi for literally no credible reason challenge: impossible.
We’re a discussion about architecture and urban planning, my dude. Commie blocs solved the homelessness relatively quickly and relatively cheaply. Great. Fantastic. That doesn’t they were best and most ideal solution possible at the time, and it certainly doesn’t mean they’re the best and most ideal solution now.
Now, as it stands, I don’t think commie blocks are that bad, I just felt like pointing out that your arguments seemed somewhat unserious, but in case you’re curious, here are the things I think are non-ideal about commie blocks:
If you’re asking me what I’d prefer instead, I’m thinking something like Eixample.